unclassified faa -8 tbdfg 86ys ul soeesooeemone ... · without the help of the general aviation...
TRANSCRIPT
-RJ7" THE DEMAND FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTON ARICMRTU) cokusrsffCORP WHNEATON MD D RUBIN ET AL RUG 87 4942
UNCLASSIFIED FAA -8 tBDFG 86YS F/G 1/3.9 UL
soEEsooEEmonEsmhEEEohEmhhhEhhhmomhEEmhEEEhhhhEEEEohmhE
11J112 1.6a
MICrThCOPV RES"I UTrfN TEST CHART'1 OS 963-A
-law
hw 171
0! The Demand forU.S. Departmentof Transp rtationSingl EngiFederal AviationAdministration Piston Aircraft
FILE COE DTICSl ELECT E C
Sc D
00(0 -- W" 5'~oil'
0000
O.9,
FAA-APO-87-18 IDT UTION SyE . 1 Office of Policy and Plans
August 1987 Washington, D.C. 20591A Approved 8o2 Public 271 214
"= 87 11 27 214
Technical keport Documentation Page
1. Report No. 1 2. Governmenr Accession No. 3. Recrpient's Cotalog No.
FAA-APO-87-18 __.---_ I
4. Ttle and Sobrt.e 5. Report Dote
!The Demand for Single Engine Piston Aircraft __August 19876. Performing Organization Code
8. Performn g Orgonization Report No.
7 Auhor s'
David Rubin and Regina VanDuzee 49029. Pe, forming Organization Name ani Address 10 Work Unit No (TRAIS)
COMSIS Corporation11501 Georgia Avenue I1. Contract Or Grant No.
Wheaton, MD 20902 DTFAO1-86-Y-0 103813 Type of Report and Period Covered
12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Office of Aviation Policy and PlansFederal Aviation Administration, U.S. DOT
% 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code
Washington, D.C. 20591
15. Supplementary Notes
W" 16. Abstract6. P The general aviation manufacturing industry has experienced a continuous
decline for the last six years, particularly in single engine piston aircraft,which dropped from 13,266 units shipped in 1979 to 985 in 1986. This decline
has resulted from increasing costs, soaring product liability costs,overproduction in the peak years, and reduction in the number of student
pilots, private pilots and flight schools.The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is interested in the future of
general aviation activity because it would impact workload and facilitiesneeds. This report specifically addresses future impacts on Flight Service
Stations.The study includes a historical review of the industry, a survey of its
current status, and an assessment of its future direction. It concludes thattechniques for forecasting future activity must be adapted to the changingenvironment. With the reversal of past trends, traditional methods no longerproduce valid results. Sales of single engine piston aircraft will increaseonly when the current surplus of low-time used aircraft is absorbed or becomestechnologically obsolete. They are not expected to return to previous peaksdue to an aging population, changing life styles, increasing urbanization, andthe availability of commercial aviation. Flight Service Station (FSS)workloads are changing due to the changing nature of general aviation activity,as well as automation, consolidation, and changing responsibilities. New FSSworkload measures are necessary to reflect these changes. -
1 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement
General Aviation, Single-engine, Flight Document is available to the publicService Station, Aircraft sales, Aviation through the National Technical Informationforecasts, flight hours, pilots, Aircraft Serviceimports and exports Springfield, Virginia 22151
19. Security Clossf. (of this report) 20. Security Classi;. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price
Unc lass i fied Uncassifed 146
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized6
.4.-'. This study was undertaken by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to gain
a better understanding as to the reasons for the continuing slump in the
general aviation manufacturing industry, particularly, in single engine piston
aircraft. It is the responsibility of the Office of Aviation Policy and Plans
to forecast future FAA workload and the need for staffing and facilities. The
data developed in this report provide information which should significantly
improve the accuracy and validity of our general aviation forecasting models.
The FAA would welcome public comments concerning this report or the
recommendations of the Contractor.
Ellen Kranidas
Director of Aviation Policy and Plans
0*
-U,
THE DEMAND FOR
SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT
Contract No. DTFA01-86-Y-01038
Prepared for
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Aviation Administration800 Independence Avenue, S.W
Washington, D.C. 20591
July 1987
K c .in For
~O 3 '-.
Prepared by J-, . .........
COMSIS Corporation11501 Georgia Avenue ,Wheaton, MD 20902
In Association With *i.,t '
Regina VanDuzee i
C>-
' ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSr ,'.
We would like to express our appreciation for the
significant time and effort others put into helping us understand
the complex dynamics of the single engine piston aircraft market
and the variety of factors that have affected the industry.
Without the help of the General Aviation Manufacturers
Association, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, and the
manufacturers, operators, Flight Service Station personnel, and
others listed in Appendix A, this report would be incomplete.
9. . The continuous advice and encouragement of Mr. Gene Mercer of the
Office of Aviation Policy, FAA, and his staff also contributed to.9-
the results. Of course, any errors or misrepresentations remain
the responsibility of the authors.
David Rubin and Regina VanDuzee
_11.99
.9.-.9,
K'.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ............................................... ix
CHAPTER ONE: HISTORICAL BACRGROUND OF THE GENERALAVIATION INDUSTRY ......................................... 1-1
Aircraft Shipments and Value ............................. 1-1Exports and Imports ................................... 1-5Shift in the Market ................................... 1-7Reasons for Market Behavior .............................. 1-7New Aircraft Prices ................................... 1-10Used Aircraft Prices .................................. 1-17Prices of Avionics .................................... 1-17Insurance Costs ....................................... 1-28Operating Costs--Maintenance and Fuel ................... 1-28General Aviation Hours Flown ............................. 1-30
* Flight Schools and Student Pilots ........................ 1-34Active Pilots .......................................... 1-37
.3. Structural Changes in the Market ......................... 1-37Econometric Modeling ..................... ............. 1-45
CHAPTER TWO: CURRENT STATUS OF THE GENERAL AVIATIONINDUSTRY .............................................. 2-1
Manufacturers............................................ 2-1Product Liability and Insurance .......................... 2-3Used Aircraft Market .................................. 2-4Operating Environment for SEP Operators ................. 2-5
Fuel Costs ......................................... 2-5Insurance Costs and Other Costs ....................... 2-10Capital Costs .......................................... 2-11Operating Environment .................................. 2-11Promotion of Flying to the Generai Public .......... 2-12
CHAPTER THREE: FUTURE OF THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY.... 3-1
Potential Demand for Small Aircraft ..................... 3-1New Manufacturers in the Marketplace .................... 3-1Market Entry of Foreign Aircraft ......................... 3-4Future Technology for General Aviation Aircraft ....... 3-8
Airframes .......................................... 3-10Wings .............................................. 3-11
A Propellers and Engines ................................. 3-11Forecasting Recommendations .............................. 3-14
04i
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
CHAPTER FOUR: FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS ........................ 4-1
Introduction .......................................... 4-1Flight Service Station Workload Measures ................ 4-1
Close Flight Plans ................................. 4-9Prepare PATWAS and TWEB Recordings ................... 4-10Process Notices to Airmen (NOTAM'S) .................. 4-11Process Pilot Reports (PIREP's) ....................... 4-11Other Functions that are Included in the CurrentMeasures ........ . . . . . . .................. 4-12
Factors Affecting Flight Service Station Workload..... 4-12Private Weather Briefings .......................... 4-12Voice Response System .............................. 4-14Consolidation and Automation....................... 4-14Aircraft Contacted ................................. 4-17Flight Training .................................... 4-18Regional Airlines .................................. 4-18Military Aircraft .................................. 4-19
Alternatives to Current Workload Measures ............... 4-20Recommendations for Forecasting .......................... 4-20
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PERIODICALS
APPENDIX A: ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED FOR STUDY
APPENDIX B: SINGLE ENGINE FIXED GEAR
APPENDIX C: AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED SEP AIRCRAFT
APPENDIX D: SINGLE ENGINE PISTON STUDY - DATABASE ANDCORRELATION MATRIX
0 ii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT - SHIPMENTS ANDBILLINGS (1946-1986) ............................... 1-2
1-2 U.S. GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT ..................... 1-6
1-3 SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT - SHIPMENTS ANDVALUES (1964-1986) ................................. 1-12
1-4 AVIONICS EQUIPMENT PRICING (1976-1986) ................ 1-19
1-5 SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT - OPERATING ANDMAINTENANCE COSTS (1970-1986) ...................... 1-29
1-6 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COST GROWTH RATES(1970-1986) ........................................ 1-31
1-7 GENERAL AVIATION HOURS FLOWN (1972-1985) .............. 1-33
1-8 STUDENT PILOT STARTS (1972-1986) ................... 1-35
1-9 PERCENT OF FLYING AGE PUBLIC HOLDING FLYINGCERTIFICATES ....................................... 1-39
2-1 SINGLE ENGINE FIXED AND RETRACTABLE GEAR PRICES .... 2-6
2-2 RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MOTOR BOAT EXPENDITURES(1972-1985) ........................................ 2-13
3-1 FOREIGN COMPANIES PRODUCING OR DEVELOPING SINGLEENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT ............................. 3-9
4-1 FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SERVICES .................... 4-5
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 ANNUAL SHIPMENTS OF ALL G.A. AIRCRAFT (1946-1986).. 1-3
-. 1-2 ANNUAL BILLINGS/ALL G.A. AIRCRAFT (1946-1986) ........ 1-4
1-3 SINGLE ENGINE BILLINGS AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL G.A 1-8
1-4 ANNUAL SHIPMENTS OF G.A. AIRCRAFT (1972-1986) ........ 1-9
1-5 ACTIVE SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT (1964-1986)... 1-13
1-6 UNIT COST OF SINGLE ENGINE AIRCRAFT ................... 1-14
1-7 GROWTH RATE OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX AND SEP UNIT
'- COST (1972-1986) ................................... 1-15
1-8 ANNUAL PECENT CHANGE OF CPI AND SEP COST .............. 1-16
* 1-9 GROWTH RATE OF CPI AND AVIONICS AVERAGE PRICE(1976-1986) ........................................ 1-26
1-10 HOURLY OPERATING COSTS AND CPI ..................... 1-32
1-11 STUDENTS PILOTS BY AGE GROUP ....................... 1-36
1-12 CERTIFICATED PILOTS ................................ 1-38
1-13 PILOTS PERCENTAGE OF MALE POPULATION-" (BY AGE GROUP) ..................................... 1-40
1-14 GROWTH RATE OF STUDENT, PRIVATE PILOTS ANDPOPULATION - AGE 20-24 ............................. 1-41
1-15 GROWTH RATE OF STUDENT, PRIVATE PILOTS ANDPOPULATION - AGE 25-29 ............................. 1-42
* 1-16 GROWTH RATE OF STUDENT, PRIVATE PILOTS ANDPOPULATION - AGES 30-34 ............................ 1-43
1-17 GROWTH RATE OF STUDENT, PRIVATE PILOTS ANDPOPULATION - AGES 35-39 ............................ 1-44
*JI 1-18 SINGLE ENGINE PISTON SHIPMENTS (PREDICTED ANDACTUAL) ............................................ 1-49
2-1 GROWTH OF SALES OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES, BOATSAND SEP (1972-1985) ................................ 2-14
4-1 FLIGHT SERVICE STATION ACTIVITY .................... 4-2
Oli
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Page
4-2 FLIGHT SERVTCE STATION ACTIVITY (PILOT BRIEFS,FLIGHT PLANS, A/C CONTACT)............................. 4-3
4-3 AVERAGE DAILY CALLS To INTERIM VOICE RESPONSESYSTEM (MARCH 15-JUNE 19, 1986)........................ 4-15
Nv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The general aviation manufacturing industry has had a
continuous decline in aircraft deliveries for the last six years.
" .This decline has been particularly evident for single engine
piston aircraft, the majority of the fleet. Shipments dropped
from a high of 13,266 in 1979 to 985 in 1986. The three major
manufacturers, Beech, Cessna and Piper, have almost ceased
production of single engine pistons. Increased manufacturing
costs coupled with soaring product liability costs have driven
prices up and discouraged innovation. Overproduction in the peak
years created a surplus of low-time used aircraft which currently
supplies the market. Numbers of student pilots, private pilots,
flight schools and hours flown have also declined.
Such a continuing decline in the general aviation industry
is of concern to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
because its responsibilities are affected by the number of
aircraft in the general aviation fleet, number of pilots, and
hours flown. Among these FAA responsibilities are estimating the
future workload and the need for staffing and facilities,
especially Flight Service Stations.
.. This study provides a historical review of the industry, a
survey of its current status, and an assessment of its future
direction. In addition, a chapter is devoted to consideration of
Flight Service Stations, now undergoing major structural changes.
They are being affected by changes in general aviation activity
and changes resulting from automation, consolidation and private
provision of Flight Service Station services. Techniques for
vi
.t.-'Ik
for forecasting such activity must be adapted to the changing
env ronment
With the reversal of past trends, traditional methods of
forecasting using population, GNP and other economic variables no
longer produce valid results. The first step of this study was
to collect all applicable data on aviation activity and related
economic and demographic measures as background information.
Extensive interviews with knowledgeable people involved in all
facets of general aviation were conducted. Heavy emphasis was
placed on the information obtained in these interviews. In
addition, substantial research was conducted on possible air-
*craft that may serve the single engine piston market in the
future and advanced technologies that may improve safety and
efficiency and lower production costs.
The report's findings may be summarized as follows:
o Sales will gradually increase at such time as thecurrent surplus of low-time used aircraft is absorbedand older aircraft become obsolete.
o Sales would be favorably affected by the introductionof a technologically improved product that signifi-cantly decreases the cost of flying.
o Sales will never return to the peak of 1979-1981 unlessa similar set of circumstances such as high inflationand an event such as the GI Bill, which encouragedentry of new pilots and put a time constraint on theperiod of eligibility, reoccurs. Historically, averageannual demand has not exceeded 7000 to 9000 aircraft ayear.
o The aging of the population, changing life styles,competition for the recreation dollar, increasing
urbanization, and the availability of commercial airtravel will continue to dampen single engine pistonsales.
vii6~
o Forecasts based on economic data should he supplementedby analysis of pilots as a percentage of the generalpopulation using census forecasts.
o Total cost of flying should be carefully monitored as afactor strongly affecting the rate of participation.
o Structural and technological changes in the FlightService Station system will make changes in workloadmeasures and forecasting methods necessary.
o Student pilots rely heavily on FSS services and adecrease in their numbers will lead to a dispropor-tionate decrease in demand for flight services.
o Regional Airlines code sharing with major airlines arelikely to use the services of the majors to file Flight
* Plans directly with the ARTCC rather than FSS's.
o Alternative workload measures should be considered tobetter describe the FSS's workload. If workloadmeasures are changed, base data will have to beadjusted to facilitate forecasting.
o Automation, improved productivity and a continuingdecline in general aviation activity will cause adecrease in demand for flight services over the nextten years.
4
viii
C" ~INTRODUCTION
The single engine piston aircraft market is the base on
which general aviation activity builds. Three-quarters of the
aircraft in the fleet are single engine piston, and that's where
involvement in flying starts. Two-thirds of general aviation
flying hours are in single engine piston aircraft. New pilots
are trained in single engine piston aircraft and work their way
up through retractable landing gear and mult '-engine piston to
turbine aircraft. When the single engine market declines, it
bodes ill for the future of general aviation. The production and
* sale of general aviation aircraft, avionics and other equipment
and support systems such as flight schools, fixed base operators,
-, finance, and insurance makes the general aviation industry an
important contributor to the nation's economy, estimated at more
2' than $15 billion annually.
Shipments of all types of general aviation aircraft
increased steadily during the 1970's reaching a peak of 17,811
units in 1978. Since that time, there has been a dramatic
decline in the shipments to 1495 in 1986. This report is focused
on single engine piston aircraft where the decline has been even
more pronounced. In 1979, 13,286 aircraft were delivered. That
number declined to 985 in 1986. The decline in shipments of
single engine piston aircraft that began in 1981 was presumed to
he a recession related decline, and did not cause serious concern
until 1983-84. Then the economy began to recover, but the
downturn continued instead of reversing. The trend has continued
SW through 1986, and the single engine piston industry today is
.i
* ix
nearly dormant. Historical linkage between growth in the general
economy and population and single engine piston aircraft sales
appeared to be no longer valid. A number of reasons have been
advanced for this pattern, chief among them being rapid price
increases, high interest rates and expensive fuel over the 1976
to 1986 time period. A portion of the price increases can be
attributed to massive awards assessed against manufacturers in
product liability lawsuits which triggered extreme increases in
liability insurance premiums, driving up manufacturer's costs.
Cessna, the world's largest producer of small aircraft, has
ceased production of single engine piston aircraft. Beech and
Piper are producing limited numbers of aircraft at the high end
of the price and weight range. Nobody is producing the simple
two seat basic trainer aircraft
Forecasts of shipments of single engine piston (SEP)
aircraft, and forecasts of the general aviation activity that
these aircraft generate have been overly optimistic for the last
several yc-ars. Nobody correctly predicted the length or depth of
the decline. Most forecasts, based on econometric measures that1.
had worked well for years, have predicted growth instead of
decline. It was felt that there was some basic change in the
structure of the market to which the forecasting models were not
* responsive. The Office of Aviation Policy of the Federal
"- Aviation Administration (FAA) contracted with COMSIS Corporation
to investigate the SEP market and develop conclusions as to the
structure of the market and ways to forecast its future.
The study was initiated with a data gathering effort that
concentrated on primary sources, particularly personal
.0 x
~ *:~~.'%.vV . ~ - - -%
interviews. Representatives of all segments of the SEP industry;
manufacturers, distributors, users and insurers were visited.
Those visited are listed in Appendix A. The interviews resulted
K in an understanding of the complexity of the situation and the
variety of factors that have had an impact on the sale of single
engine piston aircraft. Based on that understanding, data were
assembled and analyzed for a variety of elements, which included:
single engine piston shipments, new and used aircraft prices,
aviation gasoline prices and recreational vehicle shipments.
Statistical analysis lead to the conclusion that the use of the
statistical relationships for predictive purposes cannot be
recommended, as they only explain the past changes in the
structure of the single engine piston market, and it is not
logical to project these changes into the future.
The report is organized in four main sections. The nature
of the changes that have occurred are discussed in the first
section, the historical background of the industry. The current
status of the industry is discussed in the second section, and
future possibilities in the third. The fourth section
specifically addresses the changing nature of Flight Service
Station activity.
x
0 xi
"S
A*
A
'A
6
.5.
.5..
II
CHAPTER ONE
L HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY
In order to understand the structural changes that have
occurred in the general aviation industry, historical data were
examined and related.
AIRCRAFT SHIPMENTS AND VALUE
Shipments of all types of general aviation aircraft, which
have been cyclical since World War II increased steadily during
the 1970's, reaching a peak of 17,811 units in 1978 and declining
thereafter as shown in Table 1-1 and Figure 1-1. For the past
seven years the decline has been dramatic. It began in 1979 when
single engine piston aircraft (SEP) deliveries were off 8 percent
and by 1982 had spread to all categories of aircraft. The value
of shipments continued to climb until 1980 due to increasing
sales of multi-engine aircraft (Figure 1-2). The focus of this
report is single engine pistons, shipments of which dropped
sharply from a high of 13,286 in 1979 to 8,640 in 1980 to 985 in
1986, a decrease of more than 92 percent over the seven year
-, period. The drop in SEP deliveries in 1986 was exacerbated by the
*fact that Beech limited production to one model, and both Cessna
and Piper suspended production while they sold inventory and
resolved product liability problems.
*0 Meanwhile, dollar value of all general aviation shipments,
fueled by both increasing sales of larger aircraft and inflation,A.
continued an upward climb to a peak of more than $2.9 billion in
1981, then declined steadily to $1.26 billion in 1986, a 55
percent drop over the four-year period. However, for three years
1-1
nl4 -d g Jill,
TABLE I-i
GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT - SHIPMENTS AND BILLINGS1946-1986
FactoryUnits Billings
Year Shipped (000,000)
1946 35,000 $110.01947 15,594 57.91948 7,037 32.41949 3,405 17.7
1950 3,386 19.11951 2,302 16.81952 3,058 26.81953 3,788 34.41954 3,071 43.41955 4,434 68.21956 6,738 103.7
1957 6,118 99.61958 6,414 101.91959 7,689 129.81960 7,588 151.2
- 1961 6,778 124.31962 6,697 136.81963 7,569 153.41964 9,336 198.81965 11,852 318.21966 15,768 444.9
1967 13,577 359.61968 13,698 425.61969 12,591 638.81970 7,402 337.01971 7,464 321.51972 9,774 557.61973 13,646 828.11974 14,166 909.41975 14,056 1,032.91976 15,451 1,225.51977 16,904 1,488.11978 17,811 1,781.21979 17,048 2,165.01980 11,877 2,486.21981 9,457 2,919.9
O, 1982 4,266 1,999.51983 2,691 1,469.51984 2,438 1,698.11985 2,029 1,430.01986 1,495 1,260.0
Note: Factory billings are in current dollarsSource: General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA)
1-2
+
(y) - j
c0 I
D D
109600 ddH Sr~nJ ONsn6ic
1-3
7
- 6
- 2.S
ZL
2 96 L
CD (0Z-96L <
+5 009
O96~
996~
096~
0 0 Q 0 0 00 0 D 0 0 0 0
0 -n Ln c
0
(SNOflhIV\J) SONITIIS1 13N
04 1-4
- - - - -r rrr- w -, -v -- rr V - -r - 'r---'
after the number of units shipped started falling off, the dollar
value of shipments actually continued to rise.
" EXPORTS AND IMPORTS
Aircraft exports (Table 1-2) over the last decade followed
the pattern of total shipments, peaking in 1979. The percent of
total units shipped ranged from 20 to 30 percent until 1983 when
a rapidly rising dollar increased prices for foreign buyers and
exports dropped 56 percent from the previous year. The downward
trend reversed in 1985 when there was a small increase in units
shipped. 1986 showed a strong increase from 354 to 439,
attributed by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association
(GAMA) to the dollar's decline in relation to other currencies.
4However, this is a far cry from the almost 4,000 shipped in 1979.
Single engine piston shipments also peaked in 1979 at about 3,000
and the declined to 199 in 1984. 1985 saw a small upturn to 208
and another in 1986 to 271. The export market has never been thep.
focus of the manufacturer's marketing efforts, perhaps because
it is a small percentage of the U.S. market and competition from
non-U.S. aircraft has been limited. As more small aircraft
become available from foreign sources, they may replace U.S. made
products and limit overseas markets.
Imports of small aircraft have never been a factor in the
U.S. market. A total of 105 SEP's have been imported since 1981.
However, that number did increase from 9 in 1981 to 46 in 1985.
Aerospatiale's Trinidad and Tobago are the major contenders at
this time.
1-5I
TABLE 1-2
U.S. GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
Exports
Percent of Factory NetUnits Total Billings Percent of
Year Exported Production (Millions) Total Dollars
1972 2,254 23.1% 137.9 24.7%1973 3,530 25.9 230.2 27.81974 4,248 30.0 287.5 31.61975 3,512 25.0 308.1 29.81976 3,539 22.9 331.2 27.01977 3,611 21.4 354.5 23.81978 3,612 20.3 486.7 27.31979 3,995 23.4 600.9 27.81980 3,555 29.9 756.4 30.41981 2,270 24.0 749.0 25.71982 1,162 27.2 650.2 32.51983 513 19.1 316.5 21.51984 336 13.8 261.0 15.41985 354 17.4 230.0 16.21986 439 29.4 330.4 26.2
Exports by Type
Year Single Engine Multi-Engine Turboprop Turbojet
1972 1,715 455 55 291973 2,674 732 58 661974 3,371 732 75 701975 2,680 644 122 661976 2,704 669 114 521977 2,835 594 126 56
* 1978 2,712 652 166 82* 1979 2,942 774 181 98
1980 2,565 635 245 1101981 1,546 363 259 1021982 718 227 135 821983 298 119 66 301984 199 82 24 311985 208 65 53 281986 271 71 66 32
Source: GAMA
*e 1-6
SHIFT IN THE MARKET
During this period of declining sales and production, a
shift in the market took place. Sales of single engine piston
aircraft as a percent of total sales declined from about 80
percet in 1978 to 66 percent in 1986. At the same time, sales
of the more expensive turboprops and jets increased as a
percentage of units sold from 3 and 1 percent, respectively, in
1978 to 17 and 8 percent in 1986. The shift to increased
production of turboprops and jets, which helped cushion
manufacturers during the industry decline, has important implica-
tions for the future production of small general aviation
aircraft in the U.S. and the future of personal and recreational
flying (Figures 1-3 and 1-4).
REASONS FOR MARKET BEHAVIOR
During the course of the study, a number of reasons for the
boom in the market in the late 1970's and the subsequent slump
were advanced by the aviation experts interviewed. It appears
from hindsight that the extreme growth from 1977 through 1979 was
an anomaly, not a continuation of normal growth. A number of
factors were involved. The flight training benefits of the GI
Bill were about to expire. Eligible students rushed to get their
training before the expiration date. Manufacturers, encouraged
* by buoyant sales, continued production at high rates building
inventory, which was pushed out to dealers. Prices of new
aircraft escalated rapidly with prices of used aircraft tracking
the new. High prices of used aircraft made it possible to
upgrade to new with very little capital outlay and to obtain
1-7
A, '
CCC
0r0D 77-7
C)LL
Jq, 1 J
I.,
0LUZ4f zDL nC
zl
iN3OH~d
1-8
LUJz
zLUJ
LU 0
0<- 00
z -
LL c
C-)crcc
41
L- L
woco
D U
LL _ -L c
000Cl) +
Cl~ldlHSSilN
Y . V V 9 "V tb F VV
investment tax credit and rapid depreciation tax advantages as
well.
The beginning of the market decline was probably triggered
by the recessionary period that began toward the end of 1979.
However, the national economy began to recover by the end of 1982
but shipments of general aviation aircraft did not follow. There
was a large supply of new and used aircraft available, and real
prices of aircraft had increased substantially. High interest
rates pushed up financing costs and operating costs,
particularly fuel, increased as well. Technical improvement in
small aircraft was limited, reducing the incentive to purchase
new models. During the period from 1976 to 1979, when demand
appeared to be unlimited, the manufacturers had deemphasized
single engine piston promotion and concentrated on the
promotion and production of expensive jets and turboprops with
more profit potential. Much of the advertising promotion for SEP
had been aimed at potential new pilots, including free first
flights and lessons. These programs were dropped as the market
declined.
NEW AIRCRAFT PRICES
*' Prices of single engine piston aircraft have escalated
rapidly since 1978 as illustrated in the sample below.
1985 Price forAircraft 1978 Price 1985 Price Used 1978 Model
Beech Sierra 24B $58,900 $132,170 $27-30,000Cessna Skylane 47,600 101,696 29-35,000Cessna Skyhawk B 31,850 67,725 15-18,500Piper Warrior 29,930 66,200 12-20,000
1-10
TABLE 1-3
SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT - SHIPMENTS AND VALUES
1964-1986
ValueNumber of ofAircraft Shipments Unit Cost* Active
Year Shipped ($000,000) of Aircraft Fleet
1964 7,812 76,144
1965 10,023 81,153
1966 13,226 88,6591967 11,530 96,1241968 11,539 103,8071969 10,193 108,7041970 5,603 109,6431971 5,910 109,2561972 7,438 $139 $18,688 120,446
1973 10,140 2C2 19,921 126,2171974 10,884 229 21,040 131,9321975 10,532 254 24,117 137,0111976 11,803 364 30,840 136,600
1977 13,167 435 33,037 144,8001978 13,651 486 35,602 149,3001979 12,693 490 38,604 160,7001980 8,283 365 44,066 168,4351981 6,268 315 50,255 167,8981982 2,697 183 67,853 164,1731983 1,739 137 78,781 166,2471984 1,592 145 91,080 171,9221985 1,369 124 90,511 164,3851986 985 80 81,218 N/A
iExcludes agricultural aircraft.
2 Factory net billings in current dollars.
3Factory net billings - units shipped.
Sources: Active Fleet - Federal Aviation AdministrationAll other data - Aerospace Facts and Figures 1985-1986.
1-12
A recent Beech survey indicates that price is a leading
factor in the buyer's purchase decision. A study done for Cessna
on the Cessna 172 Skyhawk indicated that the average price
elasticity of demand between 1960 and 1985 was 5.96, but that
under current market conditions, between 1982 and 1985, at the
extreme upper portion of the demand curve, the elasticity has
been 22.31.1 During this period, the number of aircraft deacti-
vated has remained fairly small, with more aircraft reactivated
than deactivated in some years. As a result, the size of the
single engine piston fleet has continued to grow or leveled off
(Figure 1-5).
Table 1-3 lists the average manufacturer's price of single
engine piston aircraft computed on the basis of total shipment
value and units sold for the years 197 ? through 1986, as
assembled by GAMA. Figure 1-6 illustrates the changes. Figure
1-7 shows the average annual growth rate of the Consumer Price
Index (CPI) and prices of SEP. The bar graph in Figure 1-8
highlights the yearly difference in growth rate of the CPI and
the average price of SEP aircraft. From 1975 until 1985, the
price of a single engine piston aircraft rose at a faster rate
than the consumer price index (CPI) in every year except 1975 and
1979. The years 1976, 1982, 1983 and 1984 showed substantial
Sdifferences. The trend reversed in 1985 and 1986. In 1986 the.1
average manufacturer's price declined to $81,218 from the 1985
iMcDougall, Gerald S. and Cho, Dong W., The Demand for the CessnaSkyhawk Aircraft, The Center for Business and Economic Researchand the Institute for Aviation Research and Development, Wichita
:State University, Wichita, KS, May 1986.
1-1
Wa'
<ii
<0- <0
t26L
L6L
zz
mcc
LU9L LU
wi Ii <LU 9L61 +
m-aLD TE .L1- z~ CZO-6 L c
LUJ896.I.
Hj /91
0f U)0 I) fo Lfl696 0L
(4 5
IdVDU- 29O L JVcOH1-1963
LZ.Z Z."0U.. w77
CC Z _ / / /71-0
00
z(5 00 <
a: LU
ILU
L LLo0//C (<
141- U
V17 -LO <N
D <w
CD~* 0D 0 0 0D 0 QW0 02) (0 CN
V(S,000) SUiVT1OG0 Z
1-14
aaawL
00
H 00
00
0~ D D ZB
(*5 0 a. 03
LUOO
0('upl
1-1
I I~' ' V V me I mprrM m -- - TVWWWWIW w F N -v
C~)
C!)
z
C)
J ~ LL *q* ,'
*r 0
D= _
CU _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LUn
C,
1-16
price of $90,551. Upon investiqation with GAMA, it appears that
there were two reasons for this drop. The smal1er number of
aircraft shipped allows a more careful calculation of the total
value of shipments and considerable price discounting took place
.n 1986 to clear inventories. Included in Ap)pendix 11 are tables
siowinq the new retal prices of single engine piston by model
] ith a technical description of each aircraft, and average retail
1-rice by weight qro'uis.
USED AIRCRAFT PRICES
Over the peric d from 1978 to 1986, prices of popular models
of used aircraft have held up well. Appendix C gives year by
year detail on prices of selected models. Cessna 182 Skyhawk
I!I68-72 models sold at about an average price of S13,750 in 1978
and $13,200 in 1986. A seven year old 1979 Beech Bonanza 33 was
. selling for $86,000 in 1986 compared to a price when new of abou.
$110,000 equipped. Price- were supported by an underlying
inflation and the substantial increases in the prices of new
aircraft during this period. Given the minor differences between
older and newer models of the same aircraft, there was little
incentive to purchase a new aircraft.
PRICES OF AVIONICS
In order to look at prices changes for avionics separately
from aircraft prices, a ten year time series of prices was
constructed for six pieces of equipment suitable for installa-
tion on single engine piston aircraft. Prices for distance
measuring equipment, emergency location transmitters,
transponders, VHF navigation receivers, VHF communication
1-17
transceivers, and VHF navigation receiver/communications
transceivers were collected for the years 1976 through 1986.
S-. _-It was not possible to obtain historical or current sahes
data for each of these items. Therefore, the average yearly
price of a number of models made by several different
manufacturers was computed. In the process of computing the
average price, some of the most expensive items were eliminated
since it is unlikely they would be installed on a single engine
piston aircraft. For example, King Radio communication
- transceivers KTR 9100A at $7,882 and KTR 908 at $6710, which cost
x-ver $4000 more than any other model, were not included. Table
1-4 presents item prices, average prices, annual growth rates,
year to year price changes, and growth rates of the Consumer
Price Index for comparison for the years 1976 through 1986.
Fiqure 1-9 illustrates the comparison.
Although there is considerable variation in year to year
prices, avionics prices generally increased less than the CPI for
A the same ten year period. For example, the average annual growth
rate for DME's was higher than the CPI growth rate in only one
* "!ear, 1978. By 1986, the average annual growth rate for prices
ever the 10 year period was 3.72 percent compared to 6.73 percent
fcr the CPI. This situation is generally true for the all the
O-quiprrent except for emergency locater transmitters (ELT's), the
least costly item. The price increase may be partially explained
by the fact that when ELT's were first required by the FAA, a
number of manufacturers jumped into the market to equip the large
act ive fleet of GA aircraft, creating tough price competition.
1-18
* r- i ,'N1
m ~ ~ ~ ~ m~ m o 1
r-~~ ~ ~ o ooDo N D'
t IN z IN (4 WIN ID
a, ( ~ N~ a,
cD~~ 0L0 d)- pl
Lt -4 ODN~ ~ h r- WI WI N a'r
I coU)c D U -z~ z Q IT a% ~ r r., Ul ~ a) -w o dI- I- r- & IDI~ %CNJ - o coa NW o
ND cI~ - , r- a rN- a, u). a'- cD o lI- IN
- r- < r r
a< c N N 'N N (Wl InW Ln a r d p o N
74 :qm0 l 7 L
-I - - -- N-~ ' --- -I -I x
CD 0N IO a'0 -D0lD >c )
tp I- =>N~ 0I C) ao
-~NN ~ - - - - - - - - - - -
> >
I N
-CW~rlV9rV
*~~~~~~ NZ000 .> 00 C .
. 20> '2 - 2~' 4 CNN ' N
220 CN f4 f-N O >d)
* .202 '20 C -N 4 NC ? 0>-
-w c. L,
20 N C
-? 20o2 -> -4 J)00 2 >1 00 00
* D C InT- op2 p02 0 70 0 C. N
an Cfl Cr
c0 -202cD 0 Cl 20 Cp NP 200 N
1 '77 oo. n rD -n 'D .C .r,n N
*' ) 7 NC 200< 0 7N CDa N C o CCN 20N2 .7
-4 enI N. r- NN .7 4 'r2 NN
r. ~ ~~ C- c O l
InI cn -D
4~~7 CL C 1051 IC C - 21020 - 70 C
20 I~I------------ - - -
I m t-- - -* I <0 D ma
rD im d nWr w
IN In
d I IU? N Ncr -f 42 XNN M .> r. -Lo .- , 0
24 '91 1 a- I01 2 2-n C CC C C 00 00 00
I C 0 2 00 O 002 0 - C 'O
4~< 12a (00 2 220 C CC5 N N C -
2- 00-- 1 - - -
1201 IN200 0 1-2N0
MM~~~a l I i '
-.-. f S-- 0
N -- - - -~ ., o
3D01 r,22> 2
lo>J - a, - ) U'- aN r-2 'o- cor
-4 - Nr c- - " NNC r I r - LI- mN C .
* In Nr22 > cD 2> v) 2 52 C> u) -N) U')- 5201dp lp
al - 4 -7 a, r- c'J C-5 a, w a r).)
+4 o ID 7:02> U, 2>05n2,c, ' I) cDc
410-2>o cD14
r- c 'D'o U- Lo ) 0
- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -0
E-o
< I4 D L
r- L,) Ln cDa 0 )'n u41
I 'D ' Zr w.5, p
(n ),u 4 4J0>. >u) r
ul w
m~
>> 0 0cc,: I- E
1-21
.0 0 CD f -D 0 00 .f .z ~D
N' -- D
.000 N 0 CD 0C " N ~ NN N
In (4
ID 71 C ):ID C D C D - nI nI
(4.
911
m r- 0-, "I C, J, co~ 03.3 .3.N0.Lr- co.r CO03 0
-0 C.0 Nfl N, - - O, -r
1 -
1 3..33 .3. 1- 00 CD 3.0 0' C) 1I0 3. 'r f)c D D C 1C - -o .4 N aI 3 1 -N n3 O In n. 03 a,.I I'- tn C '0',
-3.-.-.r -.-.-- - - - -e
0-3. '3. C..3 30 a, fi a, ,3 r- 0Z04a,'ma ,c o o0 01- 00 c'0
-4 M*~ I I-
3. 0 ~ -. 3r- 300 a Ci ' 3.) fl33. '0 ~00 (Iia.In
033. U,3 0D r 0 r (N 00 CD3..0f(N CN a\3 C7,-3 m.f C4 co co N 3r~0.
-r I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -~~ - -
I 1 4
10 i '-IN 2. l,~1* f . fO3(-3
I1-2
3(' CD C) 7' dp~ dPn <innm' m' J, C7D 3'2' o
0 I s r, NN Cn-O14
in 00 .r ' f-
N CIA
I 10 =I 00-f C> N*- d)'
CD N c -S -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-4 .1E-4
p.~ I 1:4c - 7' 4 C;i
50 I
7' I dc - i
1-23-
m -- - n-. J, 7- CA
-~-N .-. N- N 71 -' a,
*1L n L n L L p-4 ma z' 10 cz IN2 . ~
r, Nl 'D ND 4:2 -N N- cflP 24: P-f
'a N -. 44 - N N N r- C-1 -
'sn -n 2r Nf Or. '- ) CD : r) '72 : . 4 :f 40 .
aIs N0 Ir I'iC
-N i - - -, - --P-c - -: - -. 22 - N- -:4 - 2f--l - - - - -
mI) r r - ) a-: C N(-. r I Io co -o No fiN -C>-N 4 a
a' - - - - - - - -----------
In2
a'I C4
'0~ i
- 12 I .20 22 20 2022 2 0 'O * s
x~ -, .7 -_ONa< I 0> N -4
a) >- 4: 2 22 222u 02 2 220 2 - 4 E- Es e
-~ IP- I 2 4: :N4: 22NN NP- 4: 4 0 0 N1-244
-r4
CD c)v cLnC f C)0r
1 -7 ,l OD 0 w
-q IN ID o --
Ifl r- 222 C- 'n -n a. 0W.I
N -- rq 4 a r- C) *4?- - 2 22 fl ~ ~ ('
NI"I CN N I n 2 ') -. 1 22l
4 - -- -- - N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -NN 2 N -2 -2 r- -
22,~2 i 4 '
A2f I U- E-.C' 4- NC I2 I2 2222
r4~~~~f2 --L n )'0 )C
.44
> >0
C> 2222 2222 -Cl oi -C2 -C E-f EN-
1221 fl~~n2 2
12 5 ( N2 N (2 'f 02 ((
-C-
~)
LUJ
000
Lu L
* .4 03
4--
0 0-
0 0,3c N
444iNDOHQ I
D Z1-26
OWN
As the market begin to taper off, many fringe manufacturers
ceased production enabling those in the business for the long
term to increase their markup and improve profitability. At this
time, the FAA is preparing rule-making to require a new-
generation ELT which must meet tough standards for immunity
against false activation. Meeting the new standards may cause
another price increase. The FAA has also set December ), 1987
as the date when all aircraft n-erating in Crcup I And T
terminal control areas must be equipped with Mode C altitude
reporting transponders, at an added cost of $600 to $900 per
aircraft.
Over the period under review there has been very little
change in FAA requirements for avionics. However, quality and
capability of avionics have improved greatly over the last ten
years because of technological advances. The advent of digital
electronics has resulted in a substantial reduction in costs of
production, size and weight and power required to operate. These
improvements have also resulted in an increase in useful life of
the equipment. In some cases, improved capability and smaller
size have provided incentive for owners to purchase additional
* equipment for safety and convenience. This trend is expected to
continue with elimination of wiring, remote installation and
improved sensing making a better product. The most recent FAA
O General Aviation and Avionics Survey indicates that 83 percent of
the aviation fleet is becoming more sophisticated in terms of its
.avionics equipment. There was a significant shift from 360
channel to 720 channel two-way communications equipment. There
was also a substantial increase in the number of GA aircraft
1-27
containing 4096 code and altitude encoding transponders. It
appears that there will be no rapid increases in avionics costs
in the near future. However, a continuing decline in the
production of small aircraft reducing the market for certain
avionics could increase m~rginal costs.
INSURANCE COSTS
Costs for aircraft hull insurance have been practically
constant as a percentage of hull costs over the last several
years, according to insurance industry representatives. They
" have remained at the 5 percent level. Actual costs have risen
due to the rapid rise in aircraft prices. Liability costs were
declin' ug ,until about three years ago, when they suddenly
-6 skyrocketed. Costs for $1,000,000 in liability coverage, which
were $90 three years ago, are now $965. Most pilots have
compensated by changing liability limits and deductables, so that
a typical liability premium is now about $350. Similiar
liability cost increases have hit the Fixed Base Operators.
OPERATING COSTS--MAINTENANCE AND FUEL
* Operating costs are an important factor in the purchase
C decision for small aircraft. Costs per flight hour formaintenance and overhaul and fuel over a sixteen year period are
displayed in Table 1-5. It can seen that with a few exceptions,
1973, 1976 and 1982, maintenance costs increased at a gradual
pace, frequently less than the rate of inflation. The overall
average annual increase was 7.75 percent and for the past ten
years, 5.36 percent.
1-28
['U°.
TABLE 1-5
SINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT - OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
1970-1986
HourlyHourly Fuel Total Consumer
Maintenance Costs Hourly Hourly Cost Priceand Overhaul per Fuel Total Index Index
Year Costs Gallon Costs Costs (1972=100)
1970 $1.40 $.434 $4.35 $5.75 95.0 92.81971 1.51 .432 4.33 5.84 96.5 96.81972 1.62 .442 4.43 6.05 100.0 100.01973 1 .97 .486 4.87 6.84 113.1 106.21974 2 .10 .657 6.59 8.69 143.6 117.91975 2.25 .702 7.04 9.29 153.5 128.71976 2.74 .765 7.67 10.41 172.0 136.11977 2.99 .893 8.96 11.95 197 .4 144.91978 3.11 1.020 10.23 13.34 220.4 155.91979 3.26 1.220 12.24 15.50 256.0 173.51980 3.48 1.610 16.15 19.63 324.3 197.01981 3.68 1.880 18.86 22.54 372.3 217.41982 4.10 1.960 19.66 23.76 392.5 230.71983 4.36 1.990 19.96 24.32 401.8 238.11984 4.53 1.970 19.76 24.29 401.3 248.31985 4.57 1.930 19.36 23.93 395.3 257.11986 4.62 1.820 18.25 22.87 377.9 260.9
Source: Federal Aviation Administration
4%"
1-29
PA0 ,
-. Cost of aviation gas on the other hand, increased
dramatically over the same period. The most extreme jump
occurred in 1973 to 1974. This can be attributed to nationwide
energy shortages at that time which pushed prices up rapidly.
Although the growth rate slowed for the next two years, the 1974
.... cost set a higher base to be compounded in the future. The years
1977 through 1981 saw very large year over year increases. The
average annual sixteen year growth rate was 9.37 percent while
the rate over the past ten years was 9.05 percent. This number
is mitigated by the fact that for the last three years there has
actually been a small decrease. The final column shows that the
operating cost per flight hour has more than doubled from $10.41
*-. in 1976 to $22.87 in 1986. Table 1-6 and Figure 1-10 also
indicate that with 1972 as base year, growth rate in operating
-.i costs has increased at a substantially higher rate than the CPI,
exceeding it in every year. The peak year was 1983 but there is
-till a wide discrepancy in 1986.
. However, operating cost has stabilized and even decreased
slightly in the last two years. Fuel cost is not thought to be a
major deterrent to flying at this time. Aircraft operators have
become desensitized to aviation gas price since the first
shocking jumps in 1974 and again in 1979 and 1980 just as
automobile operators accept $1.00 gas as a given. Other factors
have moved to the forefront in making the decision to buy/fly.
GENERAL AVIATION HOURS FLOWN
Hours flown in general aviation activities as shown in Table
%1-7 exhibited steady growth reaching 41.6 million in 1980 when
'0
04 1 -30
"-
TABLE 1-6
MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING COST GROWTH RATES
1970-1986
H~ourly FuelMaintenance Ten Year Costs Ten Year
and Overhaul Annual Average per Annual AverageYear Costs Change Change Gallon Change Change
197 $i1.40 $.431971 1.51 7.86* .43 -. 46%1972 1.62 7.28 .44 2.311973 1.97 21.60 .49 9.951974 2.10 6.60 .66 35.191975 2.25 7.14 .70 6.851976 2.74 21.78 .77 8.971977 2.99 9.12 .89 16.731978 3.11 4.01 1.02 14.221979 3.26 4.82 1.22 19.611980 3.48 6.75 9.53% 1.61 31.97 14.01%1981 3.68 5.75 9.32 1.88 16.77 15.841982 4.10 11.41 9.73 1.96 4.26 16.061983 4.36 6.34 8.27 1.99 1.53 15.141984 4.53 3.90 7.99 1.97 -1.01 11.611985 4.57 .88 7.34 1.93 -2.03 10.641986 4.62 1.09 5.36 1.82 -5.70 9.05
1-31I
9 96
* .y6 L
Cl)
LL -6LLUJ0
D 4
0 0 t) 0 0C 0 U) 0 0 )
L:) 0 lul)0 L 6 0 I-D L
1-32
TABLE 1-7
GENERAL AVIATION HOURS FLOWN
I 1972-1985
General AviationHours Flown
Year (000,000)
1972 26.41973 28.51974 30.71975 31.71976 33.01977 35.31978 37.11979 39.01980 41.61981 41.11982 37.81983 36.41984 35.91985 36.6
1-334
the trend suddenly reversed, and in 1981 the hours dropped to
41.1 million. That particular drop was partially attributed to
the controllers strike, but the downtrend continued until a small
upward shift to 36.2 in 1985. In 1986, the downtrend resumed to
33.8 million. The change was actually 20 percent over the six
year period from 1980 to 1985, not nearly as striking as the
decrease in new aircraft shipments. Hours flown by SEP went from
28.8 million in 1980 to 22.4 million in 1986, a 22 percent
* decrease.
FLIGHT SCHOOLS AND STUDENT PILOTS
The number of flight schools and student pilots have dropped
steadily since the late 1970's. The figures below show the
number of schools has decreased from 2,706 to 876 since 1976. The
drop in flight schools not only indicates that there are fewer
students learning to fly but that the schools are buying fewer
small training aircraft.
lumber ofYear Flight Schools
1976 27061977 16561978 1634
* 1979 n/ar e.1980 1568
1.985 11001986 876
The number of student pilots is shown in Table 1-8. Figure
1 -11. shows the decl 4 ne in the major age groups. The number of
student pilots dropped steadily until 1986 when there was a
marked upturn. Meanwhile, the average age of student pilots has
increased. These changes may be attributed to a number of
d;- ,-341-34
- - - - - - - - - - -
TABLE 1-8
STUDENT PILOT STARTS
1972-1986
Student PilotYear Starts
1972 121,5431973 131,3841974 113,9971975 127,4241976 1.29,2801977 138,8161978 137,0321979 139,9561980 102,3011981 117,9621982 84,7611983 94,9811984 91,3951985 80,0601986 88,706
Source: Federal Aviation Administration
1-35
a7.
+ co
>~ cc
a, D CC)
Da.)
N -~0
CD oo /L
(5 z
EL 0
* 00z (D
Lijfl
c
a. 1 4, L
I- //C/)) <
LLJ
0 CD0
SlOil1d J0 SC]NVSAOHI.
* 1-36
ractors: cost ,f training, which has ris en fr(or, about 1,500 in
S ' c a)cut S 3,000 to(ay, an increase iD the nunb1(.r (f
acti3ities ava lable to young peoplI e, and high college tuition
costs, which soak up avai able funds.
ACTIVE PILOTS
Figure 1-12 indicates the recent decline in both student and
1, rivate p ilots. These data were examined by age, particularly
for the 20-39 age groups where most flying activity occurs,
especially new starts. As Table 1-9 and Figures 1-13 through
1-17 indicate, pilot participation rate has declined over the
last fifteen years for both students and all pilots. Even though
the general population has been growing in all of the flying age
groups, the number of pilots has declined slightly, which means
that the number of pilots per capita has declined significantly.
*This is especially pronounced in the younger age groups where the
increased costs of flying have met with the most resistance. Alack of promotion of flying has also contributed to the decline.
.ess than half the percentage of the population is learning to
- f 1- today as did in .970, and the drop in active pilots is 33
percent. As the number of students continues to decline, and
active pilots age and drop out of the market, that participation
rate will continue to decline. Recent increases in students, who
i seem primarily interested in an aviation career, may help reverse
the trend.
STRUCTURAL CHANGES IN THE MARKET
What appears to have happened, based on the historic data,
*, is a major change in the structure of the single engine piston
1-37
--w Z,- "r 7'-tA - w. jW wrrjjJr r -'-'y
-l<
7, ~ ~ x x 7S,6
/7// /7/7- -
/ / /
0 iz /~ /7-/ X/ /7/ Z Z 6
z LL6
9L6 LzH- 777 70
0 E ______________________________________________IJ
C66
if) L6 0 f t
4N 4Cx
= 7 Y'C yg x~ I' -4 -
U." TABLE 1-9
PERCENT OF FLYING AGE PUBLIC HOLDING PILOT CERTIFICATES
Percent of Percent ofYear Student Pilots Private Pilots
1970 .84 1.251971 .78 1.211972 .7' 1.191973 .66 1.181974 .64 1.061975 .61 1 .031976 .58 1.001977 .59 971978 .62 1.001979 .60 1.001980 .60 .981981 .55 .991982 .49 .891983 .41 .861984 .38 .831985 .39 .82
Note: Flying age public defined as males 20-39.
.
'.
.3
e.f."
S
€. ]1-39
i. U.-.% .'...... U. U.
- NN
zD +a- I-
LI
0 cr-
1D <
zi LU OD
L H-
LUj
a-.
0-4
Jill A
'mom
00
o
N)
0L 0
f- r- co
)Cf) <* H-0oL 4,L1
LUIO
00CLJJO N(
4 H-DOU K1z4
~CC)Cfa)
0 00
O
-JJ
<0
0 0
uj DO0
LL LLJ
Li~iO 3
ILLE
H 71-4
C )
CIL
C
0 cc
w m~
~HOI<
* W~LL<I0~ <
M co0Io V
0 D 0 0 00
- <-i*
(.1)
U~cc
<Cf) \x Lc
D HO
UL LLI X
CT)ZN
HOI
00 C 0
0
0
IN30O13d
p market. There is less interest in flying as a recreational
activity, and less interest in learning to fly. The decline
should be viewed from the mid-seventies, rot from the peak years
of 1979-1981. Those years represented an anomaly, increased
activity an( increased sales due to double digit inflation and a
one-time external factor, the expiration of the GI Bill benefits.
Tnterest in flying has declined for several apparent reasons:
o increased real costs of flying;
o increased shares of disposable income spent on forhousing, transportation, etc.;
o an end to the glamour of recreational flying;
o an increase in the emphasis on family orientedrecreational activity;
o a hassle factor related to the complexity of urban
flying;
o the availability of inexpensive commercial flights;
o the increase in regional airline service at smallairports; and
o a change in the attitude of veteran military pilotstoward flying as an avocation.
ECONOMETRIC MODELING
A database of information was assembled for use in
econometric modeling. The contents of that database, complete
for 1972-1985, includes:
o Yearo Single Engine Piston Shipments from manufacturers, with
and without agricultural aircrafto The value of single engine piston shipments in current
dollarso The unit value of single engine piston shipments in
current dollarso Multi-engine piston shipments form manufacturers
I
, 1-45
o Turbo-prop engine shipments from manufacturerso Jet engine shipments from manufacturerso Total units shippedo Total billings in current dollarso Average price for all aircraft shipped in current
dollarso Number of student pilotso Number of general aviation hours flowno Itinerant general aviation aircraft operationso Local general aviation aircraft operationso Total general aviation aircraft operationso Housing cost indexo insurance cost indexo Annual disposable income in current dollarso Annual per capita income in dollarso Average annual aviation gasoline price in current
dollarso Gross National Product in current dollarso Gross National Product deflatoro Consumer Price Indexo Average annual Treasury Bill interest rateo Average annual Prime interest rateo Personal consumption expenditureso Maintenance and overhaul costs for general aviationo Hourly fuel costs for general aviationo Total operating costs for general aviationo Flight plans filed at Flight Service Stationso Pilot briefings at Flight Service Stationso Aircraft contacts at Flight Service Stations
These data were entered into a data base using SPSS, a
statistical analysis package, and the statistics below were all
derived from that database.
A study done at Stanford Research Institute and presented at
the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting2 put forth the
hypothesis that helicopter and turbo-prop aircraft sales were
*" related to real costs, real GNP, and inflation, and explained the
slump in sales as resulting from a "surplus" of aircraft acquired
S . during the period of high inflation because they were purchased
2 Hollyer, Mark R. and Starry, Claire, A New Modeling Approach forSmall Commercial Aircraft Sales, Paper presented at the January1987 Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, StanfordResearch Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
1-46
: -,w -'W W - V Y. r V W'- ., V v L V 4 V . MP U; -< : -. U -< ; W W W WUr ', . 1 . ,
as investments. This resulted in a change in the structure of
the market, which did not represent a long term trend. With the
decline in inflation, this investment stopped. The surplus was
then available again for direct use, dampening the sales of newly
manufactured aircraft. Statistical testing of the hypothesis
indicated validity.
This study attempted to duplicate these results for the
single engine piston market, even though the market has always
been structured differently, with many aircraft purchased wholly
or in part for recreational use. The results, as expected, were
not encouraging, with correlation coefficients below 0.70. This
4 led to the conclusion that the SRI hypothesis does not fully
explain the changes in single engine piston sales, and that other
factors were influencing market behavior.
Using SPSS, a variety of statistical analyses were
performed. Correlation coefficients were examined for all
variables with single engine piston sales as the dependent
variable. Chronological plots were developed for all variables
for analysis, and the logical promising variables tested in
combination using linear regression analysis. Stepwise regres-
sion was used to pick out the combinations that looked most
promising.
The hest results were obtained using two variables, which
individually did not have a high correlation, but taken together
they seemed to explain the entire curve. These two variables
w re actual aviation gasoline price (which is in fact a surrogate
for oeratinq costs and inflation) and annual hours flown. The
1-47I
• - -.. • ". * .- .-
W-*-X -. V, -1; % I - . -
equat ion the resulted from the stepwise linear regression
analv\'sis is:
SEP = 965.62*HOURS - 156.98*AVGAS - 13795.77(12.76) (-20.15) (-6.16)
T**2 0.97; D-W : 1.46; Observations = 14;
t-Statistics in parenthesis
Where :
SEP = Single Engine Piston Aircraft Shipments11OURS = General Aviation Hours FlownAVGAS = Retail price of Aviation Gasoline in current dollars
- Predicted and actual single engine piston shipments are shown on
[. Figure 1-18.
Other promising variables included Student Pilots and
- Maintenance and overhaul costs. None of the national economic
" variables tested was effective in explaining the continuing
decline in single engine piston shipments. The database and
correlation matrix are in Appendix D.
COMSIS' interpretation of these data is that the decline in
single engine piston sales has been caused by two related
phenomenon: the increasing costs, especially operating costs, of
flying; and a declining interest in flying on the part of the
public, as evidenced by the decline in the percentage of students
and licensed pilots in all the flying age groups discussed above.
Each of these factors has a number of elements contributing to
it.
The increasinq costs are a result of inflation, insurance
cost increases, fuel cost increases, and higher prices that
resulted from widening markups and a multitude of factors
affecting aircraft production costs. With decreasing oil prices
1-48
0-
C/) D
co Z q 0 26L
<I
0C)z
004D Lu LL
*Z H-j
w clrZa-Lwc
IfI
F -- V - - 1~t-6 L
0) (c) 0
GlddIHS SiINO
1-49
and declining inflation, these costs may be mitigated, but the
* real cost of flying an airplane is still out of the range of most
of the potential market. The degree to which the price of a new
airplane has affected this perceived cost of flying is not as
great as expected. THe correlation between current price of
* aircraft and units shipped was only 0.72. When the price was
adjusted for inflation, the correlation was even less at 0.69.
SLagging "units shipped" one year produced no better relationship.
*This may be partially due to the large stock of relatively new
*. aircraft available.
The used aircraft market has remained strong and active
throughout the decline. Last year an estimated 60-80,000 used
general aviation aircraft changed hands, and the price for these
- aircraft remains strong. There is a significant savings in the
cost of a "hardly used" low time aircraft over the cost of the
- equivalent new aircraft, and the lack of model changes and
technological improvements has enhanced that savings. The
aircraft manufacturers have acknowledged that their production
-. teak occurred after the demand had peaked, and that they built a
large backlog of aircraft while winding down production lines.
Itany of these aircraft were pushed into the pipeline, where they
sat unused or hardly used as inventory of the Fixed Base
Gpeorators. Today, a large supply of low-hour 1979 to 1981
aircraft are still available for purchase. Until these are "used
up" or became obsolete, they will remain the major deterrent to
:- renewed sales of single engine piston aircraft. Thp rate at
which they are being consumed is declining as a result of a
. declining interest in general aviation flying on the part of
1-50
I.I
I etential and current pilots. Part of this decline is clearly
related to costs, but several interviewees commented on other
factors which also have an impact. Some of the glamour is gone
from small aircraft flying. "There are no longer kids hanging
around the airport offering to wash your plane for a ride."
- . Returning veterans, unaided by the GI Bill, are no longer
enamored with the possibility of weekend flying. The only real
boost to pilot training today is the shortage of commercial
pilots. The complexity of the air space in urban areas, where
most potential flyers now live, has discouraged pilots, who fear
the delays and the complicated requirements of flying in or
ar(cu d Terminal Control Areas. This declining rate of participa-
tion in general aviation activity is probably a long term
phenomenon that should be reflected in any forecasts of aircraft
sales, as well as activity measures.
i o.
O 1-51.J.
-" CIIAPTER TWO
CURRENT STATUS OF THE GENFRAL AVIATION INDUSTRY
MANUFACTURERS
,,j ,rt ,nts of clenera1 av at 1t,,i aircra r H 6 c n +t r! u,
t h , r d own w a rd t rend cles p t (, a ,rj ,f f I ut ,, . h
year spurred by tax law changes. Over t V a 5 t + , ears, thestructure of the industry has cha n qed. P1] ira -or r arufacturers
are6 now owned by larger corinan Os.
Aircraft
Manufacturer Owner
Beech RaytheonCessna General DynamicsPiper Lear SiglerMooney Eurailair (French)
Engines
Manufacturer Owner
Avco Lycoming TextronContinental Teledyne
At this time, Cessna has ceased manufacturing single engine
- piston aircraft, and Beech is produci ng only the Bonanza. Theprice has been reduced from the 1986 price of $164,000 to
$131,750 in an effort to spur sales. Beech's research indicates
the the market segments for the aircraft are:
14% manufacturing0* 24% wholesale and retail trade
15% finance, insurance and real estate11% medical10% contract construction and26% other.
.- ,2
2-1
-...........
This implies that at least 74 percent of the purchases of
this price aircraft are for business purposes. It is anticipated
1987 sales will reach about 100. The two engine Baron will
account for about another 100. Production at that level will not
be profitable but will contribute to overhead. Beech never
redesigned the piston production lines to maximize efficiency at
high volumes, as Cessna and Piper did, so they can build as the
market demands. A Beech survey finds that the mean age of the
first time aircraft purchaser is now 35 and price weighs heavily
in the purchase decision.
Piper has suspended production on all models except the
Malibu, with no date set for resumption. Piper's workforce of
1,000 will be reduced by "several hundred" over the next few
months. Piper faces an uncertain future since its parent
company, Lear Sigler has recently been purchased by L
Aquisitions, a corporation organized by Forstmann Little for the
takeover of Lear Sigler.
Among the small manufacturers, Ballanca, which first began
manufacturing aircraft in 1936, has been reorganized under
Chapter 11, and with current staffing could produce one airplane
a month. Ballanca continues to refurbish their aircraft and
supply parts. Taylorcraft recently sought protection from
creditors under Chapter 11 while it attempts to reorganize. It
produced sixteen aircraft in 1986 and will continue to produce
parts for the 2,800 airplanes currently operating. Mooney
Aircraft Corporation is producing the new Mooney 201, "Lean
Machine" for $98,000 and the 205SE which will be certificated in
2-2
V--W--- -V - V- W- W - Wp.
June. Mooney has also applied for certification of a 201 using
the new Porsche 220 hp PFM 3200-3 air-cooled piston engine. Maule
and Lake also continue production, with Maule aircraft priced in
the $50,000 range. The aftermarket for parts, spares, and
. refurbishment of aircraft is now an important part of all
manufacturers' business.
-. PRODUCT LIABILITY AND INSURANCE
Product liability costs for manufacturers have skyrocketed
in the last three years. Huge awards or settlements have driven
up costs. Claimants have sued all possible defendants regardless
cf the extent of their liability and the claims often end up at
the doorstep of the "deep pockets" manufacturer rather than with
some small FBO maintenance facility or the pilot himself. At the
same time, some manufacturers were reluctant to make settlements,
resisting all claims and forcing them into court. In 1985, the
manufacturers and their insurers paid $209.6 million in
judgements, settlements, and defense costs, compared to $46.6
million in 1981 and $76.8 million in 1983. The manufacturers
report in 1985 insurance costs averaged $70,000 for each airplane
delivered. This figure is spread over a base of less than
* 2,000 delivered units. This amount, i f added to the price of
small aircraft, would make the price astronomical. In practice,
it is actually spread over all models, from $6 million jets to
$80,000 single engine pistons.
Fewer than a dozen major underwriters of aircraft product
liability currently exist, most of whom are in I,ondon. These
foreign insurers do not relate to U.S. product liability laws and
2-3
consider U.S. manufacturers poor risks while they must operate in
such a legal framework. As a consequence, they require that the
companies must be self-insured for as much as one-third or more
.of their potential liability and pay extremely high premiums for
the balance.
A general aviation product liability bill was introduced in
both houses of Congress in the last session and virtually the
same bill was introduced this session. The purpose of the bill
is to provide nationwide uniform standards of liability for harm
arising out of general aviation accidents. Many states have
product liability laws with widely varying provisions. The
* nature of aviation is such that a claimant can virtually choose
the state in which to institute legal action. The bill's primary
thrust is to limit the number of years a manufacturer can be held
liable (currently it is unlimited, covering 30 to 40 year old
*-.- airplanes) and to apply the principle of comparative responsi-
"*'" bility which would make the defendant responsible only for the
percentage of damage attributable to him. Those who follow this
*' legislation closely believe chances are poor that Congress will
consider the bill this 100th session.
USED AIRCRAFT MARKET
Used aircraft offer a viable alternative to new. There is
V' currently a good supply with many low-time aircraft bought during
the buying surge of the late '70's still available. The Aviation
Finance Association (bankers for the aviation community)
estimates that 117,000 aircraft went into service in the 1977-79
2-40J
reriod and that prob,ahiv half the used aircraft have less than
, ( 1C hours.
The market is active with average six year old aircraft
available at prices ranging from $22,500 t- $40,000. Table 2-1
shews new and used prices of selected models for comparison. New
aircraft offer very few enhancements in styling and technical
capability and the price spread of $15,000 to $50,000 between
new and used aircraft shows clearly that there is strong
:ncentive to buy used aircraft. The Aviation Finance Association
estimates that 60,000 to 70,000 aircraft turn over in a year.
The available used fleet is aging and high insurance,
maintenance, and parts costs are hastening the obsolescence of
the oldest models. Bernie McGowen, publisher of the Aircraft
Bluebook says "The time is fast approaching when there will be
very few, near new, late model aircraft. The industry has in the
past, considered 2 to 4 year old's as late models. Now, in any
quantity, we are looking at 4 to 6 years and soon it will be 6 to
10 years and the age will continue to increase until new sales
regain quantity."
OPERATING ENVIRONMENT FOR SEP OPERATORS
Fuel Costs
Fuel and maintenance costs have stabilized in the past three
years with fuel costs actually decreasing. There is considerable
spread between the wholesale and retail price of aviation
gasoline. According to Department of Energy figures the
wholesale price declined almost 25 percent in the period from
January to August 1986, from $1.098 to 0.83. A survey of 1,200
2-5
- * *i-*e.- *- *
TABLE 2-1
SINGLE-ENGINE FIXED GEAR PRICES
Used Aircraft Current Average*Aircraft New Base Price Retail by Model Years
v.Taylorcraft F-21 $28,595 1970-74(F19) - $6,800-$10,7001974-79(F19) - $9,250-$14,2501980-84 - $15,750-$26,000
MauleM-5-180e $39,342 1970-75(other - $14,000-$18,500
1976-84 models)- $19,500-$35,0001979-81 - $22,500-$25,0001982-85 NA
Maule M-5-235C $42,448 1977-80 - $18,100-$20,800Lunar Rocket 1981-85 - $22,900-$28,500
*_Maule M-6-235 $43,148 1981-85 - $24,100-$32,400Lunar Rocket
Maule MX-7-235 $44,695 1984-85 - $28,900-$30,000
**Maule M-7-235 $50,665 1984 - $37,000
Lunar Super Rocket
Cessna 182R $80,950 1956-66 - $12,250-$19,000Skylane 1967-77 - $19,500-$32,500
1978-84 - $34,500-$71,500
Cessna U206G $111,400 1978-84 - $40,500-$96,000Stationair 6
Cessna TU206G $124,650 1978-84 - $44,500-$107,500Stat ionair 6 Turbo
*Cessna 152 $45,345 1978-84 - $12,500-$32,500
r7Cessna 172Q $79,420 (1984) 1983-84 - $46,000-$56,000Cutlass
Cessna T182 $150,755 1979-84 - $48,000-$108,000Turbo Sky lane
Cessna A185F $108,090 1973-78 - $28,000-$40,500Skywagon 1979-84 - $47,000-$87,500
Cessna 207A $138,065 (1984) 1980-84 -$57,000-$110,000
Stationair 8
5' 2-6
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - -r*~-l. - - -...
TABLE 2-1: SINGLE-ENGINE FIXED GEAR PRICES (CONTINUED)
Used Aircraft Current AverageAircraft New Base Price Retail by Model Years
Cessna $152,830 (1984) 1980-84 - $61,000-$121,000Turbo 207AStationair 8
Piper $123,835 1979-84 - $45,000-$81,000PA-28-236Dakota
Piper PA32-301 $196,260 1980-84 - $67,000-$120,000Saratoga
-. Piper PA28-161 $78,558 1977-84 - $20,000-$52,500Warrior II
Beech F33A $193,790 1972-78 - $54,000-$80,000Bonanza 1979-84 - $86,000-$146,000
" Piper $174,545 1980-84 -$78,500-$137,500
* •PA-32R-301
Saratoga SP
Piper $190,525 1980-84 - $82,000-$145,000A-32R-301TTurbo Saratoga SP
I
X.
.,
2-7
04
TABLE 2-1 (CONTINUED)
SINGLE-ENGINE RETRACTABLE GEAR PRICES
Used Aircraft Current AveraceAircraft New Base Price Retail by Model Years
Aeorspatiale- $90,800 + 1984 - $97,500Socata $8,000 ferry costTB-20 Blue book $138,000Trinidad
Bellanca $125,000 1970-76 - $20,500-$32,50017-30A Average equipment 1977-84 - $39,000-$95,000Super Viking
-Mooney $97,500 1977-80 - $44,000-$56,000M20J 1981-84 - $61,000-$92,500201
Cessna $106,650 1978-81 - $38,000-$57,000R-182Skylane RG
Cessna $118,500 1978-81 - $48,000-$63,000TRI82 1982-84 - $75,000-$108,000
Turbo Skylane RG
Lak e LA/250 $194,200 1983-84 - $82,500-$102.500Renegade
B 3ech A-36 $198,560 (est) 1979-84 - $118,000-$195,000'S Pornnza
% Bech B36TC $223,708 1982-84 - $150,000-$195,000
Cessna P21OR $235,200 1978-82 - $72,500-$137,500* Pressurized (with King Avionics
Centurion and Deicing.Blue book $300,045)
Pi r $371,000 1984 - $285,000PA-46-310PMalibu Pressurized
2-804,,
Fixed Base Operators (FBO's) by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots
qAssociatJ(.n in September, 1986 showed the average retail price to
the pilct of 100/130 octane aviation gasoline was $1.82 and 80
cctane was $1.77.
A num:or of items go to make up the final retail price of
aviation fuel and provide a partial explanation for the spread.
o) The wholesale price, which is much higher than theprice of auto gas. General aviation fuels are a dropin the barrel and are not as price sensitive at thewholesale level. The price in the spot market is some-times lower but such purchases might jeopardize theFBO's long-term contractual supply.
C Equipment expense, which is a large part of the retailcost. An average refueling truck can cost from $20,000to $30,000. The cost for installing fuel tanks may be
0: $100,000 for a modest storage facility.
c Other costs, such as insurance, utilities,depreciation, and labor. There are no "self-serve"pumps. For many FBO's, insurance premiums haveincreased over 300 percent in the past few years.
C) Lease agreements with the airport authorities usuallyrequire that the FBO's provide certain levels ofservice. Hours of operation and number of employeesare frequently mandated. Amenities such as courtesycars, pilot lounges, flight planning rooms and freeice and coffee are expected. They must supply high
quality service and support, pay fuel flowage fees andcollect federal, state and local taxes on fuel.
C) Finally, with the decrease in general aviation flying,each gallon of fuel sold must contribute more toward
[O the FBO's expenses.
Discussions with FBO's, AOPA and GAMA representatives lead
to the conclusion that av gas price is not now a major deterrent
'N to f2ying. Pilots have come to accept the higher prices just as
automobile owners have. They do not seem to search out the FBO
with the lowest price but rather look for those that provide
good support services or hangar space for their plane. A
2-9
;4
significant move to automotive gasoline is not anticipated
because av gas prices have stabilized and because of objections
of many FBO's and airport operators to its use. In addition,
Avco Lycoming, maker of the largest number of the engines on used
and new aircraft strongly opposes its use.
Insurance Costs and Other Costs
Insurance costs for both the individual owner and FBO's with
rental fleet have increased significantly during the last three
years. One FBO stated that his insurance company had recently
increased the annual rate by $100,000 with 25% less coverage.
Similar reports were heard from other FBO's and some have
reported restrictions on rental aircraft, requiring pilots to
have higher minimum flight hours than the FAA requires. It
was suggested by John Sheean of AOPA that if a pilot doesn't have
retractable gear time, he will never get it because the insurance
company won't let a pilot fly such a plane until he has
experience. Mr. Ray Hall of Avemco Insurance Company estimated
that an FBO with insurance that cost $2000 to $3000 four years
ago will now pay $20,000 with lower liability limits.
Insurance for the individual pilot for a $100,000 liability
limit on passengers and $1 million on property costs $356 a year.
Hull insurance averages 4 to 5 percent which means it increases
0.1o in dollar amount as aircraft values increase. Title insurance is
also based on aircraft value; $309 on a $55,000 aircraft and $417
on a new $130,000 aircraft. This is, of course, a one-time charge
but is another example of increased ownership costs. Fees for
title searches, filing documents, registration, medical certifi-
2-10
ZI 4 - .-
cates, etc., amount to a minimum of $200. Other fixed costs that
must be covered are an annual inspection at about $500, hangar
storage at about $100 a month, airport landing fees of about $50,
and state registration fees.
Capital Costs
In addition to the operating costs, capital costs are a
major factor for today's pilot. Making a down payment and
financing an aircraft that costs $130,000 or more (compared to
$35,000 in 1978) is an expensive undertaking that must be
balanced against other items competing for resources. It was the
consensus of a number of aviation experts interviewed that
$50,000 was about the maximum viable price for a single engine
piston aircraft. It was their belief that buyers would come into
the market at that point. One interviewee suggested that a
reasonable price for a recreational aircraft was the price of a
luxury sports car, and that the decline in aircraft sales
occurred when the costs surpassed that benchmark.
Operating Environment
Finally, there is the "hassle factor". Today's operating
environment has made flying more difficult for the recreational
pilct in heavy traffic areas such as the East Coast and
California. Perhaps even more important is the perceived hassle
factor, since problems of general aviation flying in high density
areas receive much publicity and are presumed to exist
1everywhere.
*O 2-11
. .,
Today's deregulated airline envi ronrrient has had opposing
effects on the use of small aircraft for point to point transjor-
tation for busI ness or pleasure. The availability of disccunt(,d
. fares and increased service to many points by both major and
regional airlines has made commercial flights more competitive.
On the other hand, the inconvenience and increased travel time
caused by hubbing at busy major airports may discourage business
travelers and make travel by private aircraft preferable.
Changes in life style have increased the number of choices
available to the potential pilot. Boats, recreational vehicles
expensive housing and long distance travel compete for disposablee
income. The shipments of recreational vehicles and mot-or boats
are detailed in Table 2-2. Deliveries of both boats and recrea-
tional vehicles showed a sharp drop in the 1980 through 1982
recessionary period, then sales bounced back in 1983 and ended
1985 at a much higher level. (Figure 2-1) The cost of housing in
the ten years from 1976 to 1986 more than doubled, taking an
increasing share of income. Two worker families have limited
time and recreational activities are more likely to take the form
.- " of sorething the family can do together.
Promotion of Flying to the General Public
There has been virtually no promotion of flying to the
general public in recent years. Most advertising is in aviation
media aimed at current fliers. General media advertising is
specifically aimed at business travelers buying larger turboprop
and jet aircraft. The introductory flights and free first
lessons are no longer promoted. Cessna's Hangar 10 stores were
SNJ.:.- 2-1204MF
TABLE 2-2
RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND MOTOR BOAT EXPENDITURES
1972-1985
Motor RecreationalBoat Vehicle
Expenditures ExpendituresYear ($000,000) ($000,000)
1972 $ 3,900 $2,3651973 4,245 2,3221974 4,607 1,3921975 4,800 2,3201976 5,333 4,2841977 5,920 5,2371978 6,690 5,6831979 7,500 3,5821980 7,370 1,9511981 8,250 2,7751982 8,100 3,5051983 9,375 6,3241984 12,340 7,7731985 13,284 7,029
Source: Recreational Vehicle Industry Association Boat OwnersAssociation of the U.S.
2-13
-V
0 LuJ
C/ a)nI
-03(I
LU M
LI
L-
00z zo0Cd)
LU LU
*r LLJ Lc
C ) 0O
LL C 0
0
L
0 0 0CN ~- U)
IC) 0 IC)f)
INB <~<-1
-~~~~~c ,-;I/. r . , -
N.- w r l V VW
an attempt to market flying to the general public, with stores in
shopping malls selling aviation paraphernalia and flying lessons.
The project was dropped after the completion of two test stores
although they were achieving limited success.
-1
., 4%Ao%
_4,,
.L-
;...-.
A',% .
0; "".,4%' "
-, "4'
~- ,I';
2-15
ON.% CHAPTER THREE
FUTURE OF THE GENERAL AVIATION INDUSTRY
POTENTIAL DE1AND FOR SMALL AIRCRAFT
A number of indications show that a healthy demand for small
aircraft still exists. General aviation flying hours (excluding
commuters) totaled 30.8 million in 1985, with 22.9 million hours
flown in single engine pistons. The used aircraft market is
still lively with more than 60,000 aircraft transfers a year.
The Experimental Airciaft Association has 100,000 members and the
Aircraft Operators and Pilots Association has 260,000 members who
own 140,000 aircraft. The number of student pilots actually
increased in 1986. As the fleet ages, replacement with new
aircraft will become a necessity. The average age of FAA
registered SEP aircraft in the U.S. is almost twenty years and
the backlog of six to eight year old aircraft produced during
peak production years will start running out.
Several large flight school around the country need trainer
aircraft and prefer new airplanes. These include the University
of North Dakota Center for Aerospace Sciences, Purdue University,
Ohio State, and Embry Riddle. The University of North Dakota, for
example, owns 65 aircraft, has 1,000 aviation majors, 570 flight
students, and 115 flight instructors.
NEW MANUFACTURERS IN THE MARKETPLACE
Given the retreat of the large manufacturers from the single
engine piston market, it is likely that some new players will
enter the market in addition to the existing small manufacturers,
particularly because new entries will not have a long tail of
3-1
e'p
.1 .
potential product liability claims. Currently two possibilities
in? the II.S. exist: a number of experimental aircraft that may
become certificated under a new proposed FAA regulation and the
-I Pe Vore Sunbird.
A proposed FAA regulation would create a new category of
certification called "primary aircraft." Such a certification
would make a distinction between aircraft used for sport and
recreation and aircraft used for business travel and for-hire
service. This could allow amateur aircraft to be certificated in
a standard airworthiness category and mass produced by kit
* manufacturers. Current FAA regulations require that 51 percent
of an amateur aircraft must be assembled by the owner. There are
13,000 of them licensed in the U.S., 2,000 built in the last two
years, and another 18,000 under construction. The Experimental
Aircraft Association, which represents this group of pilot-
owners, is a very active organization. Kit aircraft prices range
from as low as $3,900 for the Rand-Robinson Engineering's KR-2 to
$43,000 for the 300-mph Swearingen SX300. Prices usually do not
include engine, propeller, avionics or flight instrument purchase
I •and installation costs.
To assess the potential of this source of aircraft, a number
of kit builders were interviewed. Two of the larger companies,
,O Zenair of Nobelton, Ontario and Fisher Flying Products in South
Webster, Ohio, await approval of the new regulation. They
believe it will result in a substantial reduction in the cost of
certification. Zenair expects to produce an airplane for about
$22,000 which would probably mean a retail price of about
.O4 3-2
$30,000. Currently, neither company carries liability insurance.
Without the kind of standards set by certification, underwriters
cannot judge the products. With certification, it will be
possible to get insurance; however, Fisher, a U.S. manufacturer,
is concerned about product liability exposure. Zenair, in
Canada, where the laws discourage product liability suits, is not
particularly concerned.
The De Vore Sunbird is being built by De Vore Aviation
Corporation in Albuquerque, NM. It is a high-wing, composite,
tricycle-gear aircraft designed primarily for the training and
personal flying markets. The wing incorporates the drooped
leading edge technology developed by NASA for more stability and
spin resistance and its aerodynamic capabilities have been tested
in NASA's wind tunnel at Langley. It is a two-seater and has a
pusher propeller and a 60hp British built engine. FAA certifica-
tion is expected in about 18 months. At this time, it is offered
at a guaranteed factory price of $22,000, and the company has 30
deposits. If the first model goes well, it will be expanded to a
four--place model with a larger engine.
Beech, although it is producing only the $132,000 Bonanza at
this time, is sponsoring Sealed Composites, Inc. In that
division, research and development staff is working on technology
that may offer promise for simplified manufacturing processes and
greater operational efficiency. Under consideration is state of
the art pressurized piston single utilizing composite materials.
3-3
N % %
-~ MARKET ENTRY OF FOREIGN AIRCRAFT
A number of aircraft are currently being produced in other
~. ~.countries that could move in to fill the vacuum created when
* rmajor U.S. manufacturers cut back or ceased production cf single
engine piston aircraft. A similar situation occurred in the
aircraft manufacturing industry when the leading U.S.
manufacturers decided not to develop a new aircraft for the
commuter market. The Beech 99 was being used by commuter
airlines, but was essentially an executive aircraft and not well
adapted to commuter use. Swearingen (now Fairchild) did develop
the Metro specifically for the commuter market but it was still
an adaptation of the executive Merlin. Meanwhile, Embraer in
Brazil, Shorts in Ireland, Aerospatiale in France, deHavilland in
Jh.. .
Canada, and others decided that market growth in the commuter
industry was sufficient to support development of new aircraft
[j -,
that would accommodate 19 passengers or more. Those foreign
built aircraft are now the backbone of the commuter fleet.
Foreign aircraft have also penetrated the business jet market
with the French Dassault Falcon, British BAE 800, and Israeli
Westwind, already in service. in 1985, business jets produced in
countries other than the U.S. comprised about 34 percent of the
total value of corporate jets delivered. Foreign producers have
learned to compete effectively in these segments of the U.S.
marketplace. one can assume they could do the same in the single
4 engine piston market.
3-4
The frarework of international trade offers both advantages
and disadvantages for a company wishing to compete in the U.S.
market. In many countries, foreign governments are deeply
involved in the financing of design, development, production,
marketing and sale of aircraft. The governments do not
necessarily judge success or failure by the normal commercial
standards of U.S. companies. National prestige, creation of an
indigenous technology and production base and increased
employment are all motivators.
Both U.S. and foreign countries must operate within the
requirements of foreign trade agreements. The Agreement on
Trade in Civil Aircraft, implemented January 1,1980 was designed
to help reduce world barriers to aircraft trade. All signatory
nations offer duty free treatment to almost all civil aircraft
products. The Agreement also seeks to promote fair competition,
primarily through some controls over government supports to
industry. In January 1986, an agreement was reached within the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on
official export credits for small and medium sized aircraft.
Under the agreement, loans on piston engined aircraft are limited
*to 5 years. The agreement also requires interest rates more
commensurate with market rates. However Brazil, Australia,
Indonesia and Israel have not signed these agreements although
S0 both Indonesia and Israel have expressed interest in future
participation in the agreement.
Brazil's Embraer has not chosen to compete in the single
engine piston market in the U.S. but does manufacture the Ipanema
agricultural models and Piper kits for the South American market.
3-5
.. ..
However, Embraer has the potential to produce its own models
rather than build from kits. Brazil is not signatory to the
Civil Aircraft Agreement. Whereas Brazil's aircraft receive duty
free treatment in the U.S., the Brazilian government continues to
levy duties on imports of aircraft and related products. Duties
are highest on product groups that compete with equipment manu-
factured there. Current duties on aircraft are 20 percent plus a
value added tax of 10 percent. Duties on imported parts range
from 7 to 85 percent plus a value added tax of 15 percent.
Generally, U.S. trade barriers do not put foreign aircraft
manufacturers at a disadvantage. Meanwhile, U.S. manufacturers
are vulnerable to some tariff barriers and many non-tariff4.
barriers and some forms of subsidy which are far less visible and
more difficult to monitor. Non-trade barriers may be altered and
manipulated with relative ease. U.S. manufacturers are operating
in an international arena in which competitors are continually
seeking ways to avoid restrictions of multilateral agreements in
order to gain competitive advantage.
Product liability is currently of concern to foreign
manufacturers considering entry to the U.S. market, particularly
if they contemplate an assembly facility in the U.S. or any largeIi deployment of assets to set up a support system. Generally,
however, they are much less exposed because they are vulnerable
only for those W'rcraft sold in the U.S. and do not have exposure
for a large used fleet. However, to maintain credibility in themarketplace they must have adequate insurance to defend their
3-6
'4 - -' . --gi g & 6 1 "A Oik. *
products. They are also in a good position to sell in an
expanding world aircraft market and thus spread their risk.
The level of technology achieved by foreign manufacturers
enables them to compete effectively. An example is Socata's
Trinidad which competes with the Mooney, one of the most advanced
of U.S. single engine pistons. Mooney Aircraft Corporation,
located in Texas is now owned by Eurailair International of
Paris. The Trinidad is a well styled and designed aircraft and
roomier than the Mooney. The manufacturing process is less labor
intensive than for comparable U.S. aircraft. It takes 600 hours
to build and has a 60 percent lower parts count for ease of
maintenance.
Until recently, international exchange rates were to the
advantage of foreign producers. Recent declines of the dollar,
however, will make it more difficult for them to offer an
attractive price. An attractive price and a well run marketing
and support system are vital for a successful program.
Aerospatiale already has a large facility at Dallas to support
their helicopter program and offices and full staff in'a
Washington, D.C. for the ATR-42 commuter aircraft. Socata, a
subsidiary, has made starting efforts toward marketing the
Trinidad and Tobago and a number have been sold. Socata also
markets the French Robin in Europe. Aeritallia has a much
smaller support staff but does have offices in Washington, D.C.
and has made limited efforts to introduce the 8-passenger
Partenavia. Aeritalia is considering expanding its U.S. base
with the purchase of Fairchild's Metro division in San Antonio.
Grob, of West Germany has a facility in Bluffton, Ohio and a
3-7
ItLMAAJL
dealer network for its gliders and motor gliders. British
Aerospace has an extensive sales and support staff for its
commuter aircraft and business jets. Although it manufacturers
no small aircraft itself, it could lend marketing support to
other British companies such as ARV Aviation. The ARV Super 2, a
two-seat trainer certified by the British CAA is in production
priced at the equivalent of $44,000 in England. At this time ARV
is hesitant to enter the U.S. market because of the difficulty of
obtaining product liability insurance and its high cost.
It must be added that the rapid internationalization of the
aircraft manufacturing industry in both the air transport and
general aviation categories has somewhat neutralized competition.
Many U.S. parts and engines are used in foreign aircraft and vice
versa. Aerospatiale's Trinidad is an example. It has U.S.-made'.n-..* engines, propellers, brakes and avionics--an estimated 82 percent
of the total cost of component parts.Table 3-1 lists the foreign companies that are producing or
developing single engine piston aircraft, which could compete for
the American market.
0 FUTURE TECHNOLOGY FOR GENERAL AVIATION AIRCRAFT
Very little innovat:ion has occurred in aircraft and engine
design for small. general aviation aircraft since World War II.
The design of the majority of today's small piston fleet is based
on aeronautical science that was developed before and during the
, war. Recently, however, spurred by the increased cost of fuel
and by advances in transport and space vehicles transferable to
small aircraft, more attention has been devoted to technoloqical
3-8
TABLE 3-1
FOREIGN COMPANIES PRODUCING OR DEVELOPINGSINGLE ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT
EstimatedCountry Copany Aircraft Status Price
Brazi 1 Embraer Ipenema-Agric. In production n/aPiper Kits For sale in(Archer Saratoga BrazilSeneca IIIArrow)
France Aerospatiale TrinidadTB 20 In production $140,000Socata Trinidad TC FAA certified 155,000
Tobago TB 85,000
Robin Robin-3000 In production n/aand Bijou
Italy Aeritalia Mosquito, 2 seat In production $35,000Agusta Siai Four seat In production $210,000Marchetti Aerobatic FAA certified
United ARV Aviation ARV Super2 In production h 26,000Kingdom Isle of Wight New Hewland CAA certified (-$44,000)
engine Four seat indevelopuent
Nash Aircraft Nash Petrel 5 models being n/aLtd. two seat tested for CAA
*: low wing
Trago Mills Trago Mills CAA certified n/aSAH I in productionAerobatic
W.Geriany Grob Systems Grob G115 FAA certified DM 145,000two seat late 1987 ( $80,000)
4 four seatplanned
3-9
irqprovements. Such improvemlents wc -cd add features that aren't
avai lable in the current fleet of used aircraft and could
generate new purchases.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
- . has been involved in research for general aviation aircraft for
many years, striving for improvements in efficiency, safety and
environiental compatibility. Most of the research has been done
at NASA's Langley Research Center at Hampton, VA., while propul-
sion research is done at Lewis Research Center in Cleveland.
NASA also works with universities and industry. NASA allocated
$9.4 million to general aviation research in 1986 and has
.:.. projected about the same amount for 1987, approximately 2.5
percent of the total budget.
Airframes
.12 NASA and the manufacturers are attempting to redesign the
fuselage to reduce drag by promoting natural laminar flow and to
incorporate structural concepts based on the strength Lnd weight
advantage of composite materials. Composites offer a potential
weight reduction of up to 30 percent. The favored composite
materials are carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) and Kevlar.
Production cost is a major problem in using composites since
retooling plants and retraining workers is expensive. Over the
long term, however, more automation is possible with composites
than with metal. Two larger, all-composite aircraft under
development are th6 Beech Starship and the AVTEK 400. Both are
twin turboprop designs with canard surfaces and high cruise
speeds. They are radical departures from the general aviation
3-10
16
norm, Lit as yet rio manufacturei has indicated a wi I I j ngness to
bui C an all-corn[p(sit E °ingle engine [:iston aircraft.
Ex pe2imentaI a.i rcraft have been using co)mp-posi tes extensi vely
f( - some tire. K t builders can incorporate advanced technology
sUCh as composites more quickly because of the absence of certi-
ficatjcr: requirements. Less conventional configurations such as
carar( wings and winglets are also used on experimental aircraft.
Wings
1 rrproverents in wing design and construction are directed
tcward achieving natural laminar flow with smooth contours and
surfaces. Composites offer much promise and are already in use in
winos of a number of aircraft. Winglets reduce vortex drag by
Froducing a forward lift component and at high lift they
significantly increase lifting surface of the wing although
there is a weight penalty. Winglets offer great potential for
*. decreased fuel consumption and higher performance but the winglet
must be tailored specifically for each design.
Propellers and Engines
W* Propeller research has focused on improving efficiency and
reducing noise, both interior and exterior. Some of the concepts
being explored are elastic pitch change, use of composites and
pusher propellers, as used on the Voyager experimental aircraft.
NASA propulsion research has centered on improving
* efficiency and reducing noise and exhaust emissions in general
aviation engines. NASA conventional piston engine research
involves applying existing technology to improve fuel economy by
3-11
leaner operation, drag reductions, and flight at high altitude.
Reduction of exhaust emissions and engine installation drag,
improved fuel injection systems and cooling methods, and advanced
turbochargers are part of these efforts as well. Turbocharging
can extract more power from a given engine displacement and
maintain power from sea level to high altitudes. Currently a
Lycoming engine flying in the high-altitude Mooney M30 and a
Continental in the high-altitude Piper Malibu, are both using
Garrett turbochargers.
The use of advanced materials such as titanium and a small
amount of reinforced plastic and ceramics offer potential for
reducing engine weight as much as 30 percent. Advanced engines
constructed of such materials also allowed higher service
ceilings, 25,000 to 35,000 feet, and time between overhauls can
be increased from 1,400 hours to 2,000 hours.
For the future, the major areas for research are durability
to reduce maintenance and fuel consumption. To improve fuel
consumption, changes may be made in the combustion system, timing
and in the -lectrical system. Avco Lycoming is working on a high
turbulence system of fuel-air mixing to boost fuel efficiency.
Advances may also come in electronic fuel injection for aircraft
engines.
An important advance for general aviation would be the
development of a multi-fuel engine. Aviation gasoline is
expensive and unavailable in many parts of the world. One
alternative is automotive gas but it is lower octane and at this
time does not have a high enough level of quality control. Jet
fuel is available worldwide and costs less but must be run in a
3-12
diesel-type engine. It is possible that a small low cost turbine
engine could supplant the piston engine in applications above 300
horsepower. This would only be suitable for the largest and most
* expensive single engine aircraft. The small stratified charge
turbocharged rotary engine appears to offer the most hope. The
strati f i ed charqe feature permits two levels of fuel richness
in a combustion chamber. A small charge of a rich mixture is
- ignited, which then fires the remainder of a chaige that is too
lean to ignite easily. The engine would burn jet fuel with an
advanced version that could have multi-fuel capability, would be
liquid cooled, and have low fuel consumption andc low profile
drag,
< Avco Lycoming was working on such an enqane witi John Deere
Technologies International. Unfortunately, this p-rogram had a
setback when Lycoming (a subsidiary of Textrn, inc.) decided to
stop funding development. Jchn Deere is centinu'rc the prcgram
for the aircraft engine and ]okn for a lartner to replace
L, coming and assist in mrarket; ng and (istri bution. They expect
to have a 400 hp, eiiqine re'adv for test nq 1,% ay , 1 987. This
Onqne is expected toI cost abCut S35, (00, about one-third what a
url)i enci i nf-, of s in la r p wer ('U']U cost. This 400 hi, engine
-is tc ]arq for small sinqae rnqine aircraft. However, the
c(mparAy is work ir with NASA w is Rosf,a-ch Center on 1CiO hp and
] 70 lhp enqines. The,}" f xj ,ct to :av, the smaller engine ready
t or t s iru in q r 8, and (1 , to price it at about the same
is a re.ar rocat ing encine (of the same power. It will be,ncr,, f'idi I ff io ,.nt and s dfsagnd for multi-fuel capability but
3-13
*,* ,.-
76408 768 THE DEMAND FOR SINGLE ENGINE PISTON 8IRCRAFT(U) CAINSIS2'CORP MHEATON ND 0 RUBINK ET AL. RUG 87 4902FRR-RPO-87-iS DTFAi-86-Y-8i038
UNCLASSIFIED F/ 13UCASFEhhEE t/2E9iEEhh~h~hhhh
11111 1.25 111 . "~.6
Mjrn r)np RS"I UprN TEST CHART'nS 163-A
Io
is particularly intended for the less expensive and more widely
available jet fuel.
Teledyne Continental is also working on a small rotary 100
hp engine through a licensing agreement with Norton Motors Ltd.
* .of England. its first use is expected to be for remotely piloted
vehicles and ground use. When the engine is fully tested in
about two years, however, Continental will apply for small
aircraft certification. It will be designed to price at about
$6,000. Such a price would be a strong support to bringing small
aircraft prices down. The company believes there is a need for a
trainer/recreational level aircraft and that there is an
important market for such an aircraft.
A number of these technological advances are directed toward
bringing down cost of airframes and engines and improving the
operating efficiency. Most are in use or in the advanced testing
stage and could have an early impact on the market because they
have the potential for lowering price and for offering
substantial innovations that would mare new aircraft attractive
to buyers. Perhaps the most depressing factor is the high cost
of product liability insurance which discourages manufacturers
from offering new products.
FORECASTING RECOMMENDATIONS
The implications of this study for forecasting single engine
piston sales are:
o Sales will gradually increase at such time as the> current surplus of low time used single engine piston
aircraft is absorbed or older aircraft become obsolete.
3-14
.
o Sales would be favorably affected by the introductionof a lower priced technologically improved product thatsignificantly decreases the cost of flying. Thispossibility exists today. The introduction of aproduct which improves performance but does not signif-icantly lower costs wi]l have much less impact, exceptat the high end of the market.
o Sales will never return to the peak of 1979-1981 unlessa similar set of circumstances reoccurs, including highinflation and an event such as the GI Bill, whichencouraged entry of new pilots and put a timeconstraint on the period of eligibility. The annualdemand for single engine piston aircraft for direct rsehas average 7,000 to 9,000/year historically. Theaverage is unlikely to exceed that figure in thefuture.
o The aging of the population will further dampen singleengine piston sales, as will the competition for therecreation dollar, changing life styles, increasingurbanization, and the availability of inexpensive
S, commercial air travel.
it is recommended, based on these conclusions, that current
econometric forecasting methods used for general aviation
activity be supplemented with more pragmatic forecasting
-. techniques based on rate analysis. The current rate of pilot
participation of the population can be extrapolated based on
census data, as a check on econometric forecasts. It can be
assumed that the rate is relatively constant, changing only when
* circumstances that affect the rate, such as a substantial cost
variation, change.
Recreational flying is an easily deferrable activity.
Therefore, there is a price elasticity to flying and to
purchasing aircraft which should be considered in developing
forecasts. Both operating costs and aircraft price have
moderated somewhat recently, but the real increase in costs over
the last 15 years has been very significant. A high elasticity
3-15a,,
J. ",-. - v-u -r- r- I-v.J- , ' "- 9-,.' -- .... r * r . 1
of -8.4 for aircraft prices and -7.6 for operating costs was
found in the regression analysis. Therefore, all of the costs of
flying should be carefully monitored as factors strongly
affecting the rate of participation.
Recreational flying has become an activity that has a
predominance of high income participants. Significant growth in
recreational flying activity would require a decline in costs
sufficient to access a market further down the income curve.
Since income distribution is a reasonably normal distribution,
the size of the market increases rapidly as costs decline. It
similarly decreases rapidly as costs increase. Attention to the
actual costs per hour of operating a single engine piston
aircraft is, therefore, very worthwhile in developing forecasts.
4 -
3-164
CHAPTER FOUR
FLIGHT SERVICE STATIONS
INTRODUCTION
Flight Service Stations (FSS's) are FAA's point of contact
with pilots before and during flight, complementing the Air
Traffic Control facilities and providing weather and other infor-
mation by telephone and radio. This study addressed Flight
Service Stations as a particular issue in the forecasting of
general aviation activity because FSS's are experiencing several
major structural changes, including the changes in single engine
piston activity. The current workload measures and forecasting
techniques are not adequate to the task of developing estimates
of future workloads. PSS's are in the middle of a process of
automation and consolidation, which will reduce the number of FSS
facilities by a factor of five and reduce the Flight Service
Specialist time necessary for many of the FSS functions.
The activity of FSS's is measured counting three activities:
pilot briefings, flight plans filed, and aircraft contacted.
These data are the only available data on FSS activity. In
recent years, those activities have declined (Figures 4-1 and 4-
2). These declines are not solely a function of a drop in
general aviation activity.
O FLIGHT SERVICE STATION WORKLOAD MEASURES
Forecasts of flight services are prepared for pilot briefs,
flight plans originated (IFR and DFR) and aircraft contacted.
Total flight services are not the additive total of these three
measures, but are calculated according to a weighted formula:4
~4-1
/ 26 L
a) "7777/ 7777/7777777 777716- 1
H K-, 6 L
It - z
LLO 0
>U 0
L196 <0 c0
II 961.0
O 00 0(-D 4-
Gl3H3CN3H S30IAH3S JO SNOIvII
4-2
C)U) <
0 Lc g< 0 zLL EL <0
-6
/ II
i /
F< 0
<LU WuL
0 C0
LU 0
V696~H L
/9 C)
xt~
g9 F<
C u) 0 196 L l
C13HD(N3H S30IAH3S JO SNOIT1WJ
4-3
Flight Services = 2(PB + FP) + AC
Where:
PB = pilot briefs,FP = flight plans filed, andAC = aircraft contacted.
In the Flight Service Station Privatization Evaluation.1
Report, 1 COMSIS identified 38 functions performed by specialists
(Table 4-1). However, 4 of those functions were identified as
services that would end with consolidation, so the relevant
number of services to consider is actually 34. Those functions
-ere divided into several broad categories, which have some
0. overlap: on-ground pilot services (10), ground-to-air pilot
services (10), emergency services (5), data services (8), and
public services (1).
A number of functions identified are listed in more than one
category, which may have been appropriate for an evaluation of
the services private companies might be willing to assume. In
those cases, there was a valid distinction between on ground
pilot services and ground-to-air pilot services. Such a
distinction would not be relevant if both functions were
6- performed by FSS specialists; correction for this double counting
reduces the number of distinct functions to 30:
4/19 Close flight plans/ 8/15 Relay clearances
9/16 Provide Special VFR Clearances.0/10 Provide flight services for special events
.4
_ COMSIS Corporation, et al., Flight Service Station PrivatizationEvaluition, prepared for the Federal Aviation Administration,
.une 1987.
6O4 4-4
SOil
TABLE 4-1
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SERVICES
On ground pilot services
1. Conduct preflight pilot briefings2. Process preflight IFR flight plans3. Process preflight VFR flight plans4. Close flight plans5. Process international flight plans6. Advise Customs of international arrivals7. Prepare PATWAS and TWEB recordings8. Relay clearances9. Provide Special VFR Clearances
10. Provide flight services for special events
Ground-to-air pilot services
11. Conduct in-flight weather briefings12. Provide Enroute Flight Advisory Service13. Process in-flight IFR flight plans and modifications14. Process in-flight VFR flight plans and modifications15. Relay clearances16. Provide Special VFR Clearances17. Pfovide flight movement and air traffic control
messages18. Conduct hazardous reporting service19. Close flight plans20. Provide flight services for special events
Emergency services
21. initiate and participate in Search and Rescue22. Monitor emergency radio frequencies23. Assist pilots in distress24. Assist in the location of ELT transmissions25. Develop airport emergency plans
Data services
26. Process Notices to Airmen (NOTAM's)41 27. Process Pilot Reports (PIREP's)
28. Process military mission information29. Contribute to law enforcement activities
4 30. Maintain a data base for legal and administrative-- purposes
31. Prepare accident data packagesN 32. Transmit administrative messages
4-5
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
Public relations services
33. liaJson with area airports34. Perform public service functions
Services that will end with automation
35. Monitor navigation aids36. Provide airport advisories37. Perform weather observations38. Operate airport equipment
Sources: FAA manuals and field observations.
4-6
In practice, the three measured flight services used in the
FAA counts and forecasts each encompass several of the 30
identified functions.
Pilot Briefs include the following functions:
1. Conduct preflight weather briefings10/20. Provide flight services for special events
11. Conduct in-flight weather briefings12. Provide Enroute Flight Advisory Service
Flight Plans originated includes the following functions:
2. Process preflight IFR flight plans3. Process preflight VFR flight plans5. Process international flight plans
10/20. Provide flight services for special events13. Process in-flight IFR flight plans and modifications14. Process in-flight VFR flight plans and modifications
Aircraft Contacted includes a variety of functions that may be
performed singly, as one aircraft contact, or together, as
several aircraft contacts counted as one aircraft contacted,
including all those functions identified as ground-to-air pilot
services:
4. Close flight plans6. Advise customs of international arrivals8. Relay clearances9. Provide special VFR clearances
10/20. Provide flight services for special events11. Conduct in-flight weather briefings12. Provide enroute flight advisory service13. Process in-flight IFR flight plans and modifications14. Process in-flight VFR flight plans and modifications17. Provide flight movement and ATC messages18. Conduct hazardous area reporting service23. Assist pilots in distress27. Process pilot reports (PIREP's)
There is an overlap between aircraft contacted and both
pilot briefs and flight plans originated that may result in some
double counting. For example, a flight plan that is filed
enroute will count as both an aircraft contacted and a flight
4-7
I
P plan originated. The magnitude of this double counting is
unknown.
Emergency services are very important functions, but they
-. are difficult to count because emergencies are so infrequent. It
is also difficult to isolate the individual emergency functions,because they are interconnected. Monitoring emergency radio
*' frequencies (22) will, in the case of an emergency, lead to an
assist to a pilot in distress (2]), and both of these will also
be considered in the aircraft contacted count. Search and rescue
(21) activities are initiated by a series of events following a
flight plan that is not closed or the receipt of an Emergency
Locator Transmission (24).
-The workload created by the provision of emergency services
will always, by their nature, he measured as potential activity
rather than as the result of actual occurrences. Emergency
services are passively previded as a back-up to the system and
are only activated by an emergency. The importance of that back-
up system cannot be measured solely by the number of emergencies
that occur; any count will underestimate the value of those
* services in saving lives and property.
Developing airport emergency plans (25) is a minor function
for which FSS's share responsi bility and would be more
a propriately considered a public service function (34), as would
% liaison with area airports (33).
Flight service stations also provide a large number of
administrative services, which were characterized in the
Privat j zati o)n Study as data services. Several of these do not
04 4-8041
reflect any demand for flight services, but tie the FSS's to the
rest of the FAA airspace system:
29. Contribute to law enforcement activities30. Maintain a data base for legal and administrative
purposes31. Prepare accident data packages32. Transmit administrative messages
"'his review of the functions of the flight service
specialists demonstrates that there are several functions that
are not counted, and a number of others that are either partially
or inappropriately counted. Counting these service provided to
)ilcts will better describe the actual operations and workloads
of FSS's as discussed in the following sections.
Close Flight Plans
Flight plans originated are one of the three current
workload measures, but closing flight plans is not counted except
as an aircraft contact, which may not create an additional count.
The formula does weight flight plans double, but if that
weighting is intended to count flight plan closings (on the
assumption that there will be a closed flight plan for every
originated flight plan), it overestimates IFR flight plans, which
are often closed through a center and not an FSS.
This overestimation of IFR flight plans is exacerbated by
the fact that VFR flight plans entail a greater specialist
w (,rIoa d. An IFR flight plan is passed to the center, a one-step
r rocess, and at some FSS's many 1FR flight plans are filed auto-
nat ca iv by regional airlines and major air carriers on a
rqular and repetitive basis. In contrast, VFR flight plans must
i. processed, activated, passed on to the destination FSS and
4-9
--, . . . . . . -.... . . , .. . • -
- . r a , - - , , .. = - , 2 w' = . r ,. 7 r, .' -: -T, , , 2 -e . •. -. - .
closed. In addition, these flights are monitored so that, if a
VFR fliqht plan is not closed, a series of emergency steps are
taken. Separate counts and forecasts of VFR and IFR flight plans
originated are made, but the totals are then aggregated and
entered into the workload formula. A separate counting and
different weighting may be appropriate.
Prepare PATWAS and TWEB Recordings
These are recorded weather briefings and do not involve
contact with a flight specialist. The specialists' workload
consists of recording periodic updates of the messages. This is
not an insignificant use of specialists' time because the
recordings are updated every hour, and this typically takes about
five minutes (or 8.5% of one specialist's time).
The demand for this service is unrelated to the workload on
the specialist, however, for once the message is recorded, it
doesn't matter if one or one hundred pilots access the message.
Because the workload does not vary with demand but is constant,
the inclusion of this measure would add stability to the workload
forecasts and reduce their variability. With consolidation, the
0 number of recordings at a single FSS are increasing significantly
and requiring a significant personnel allocation, for which no
"credit" is received using current workload measures.
The actual use of PATWAS and TWEB messages may, however, be
an indicator of the use of other flight services. To what degree
these recordings may substitute for a pilot brief or an aircraft
contact is not known, nor do we know if this relationship has
changed over time. For example, in may be that pilots will use a
* 4-10IF I
combination of private weather briefings and PATWAS and TWEB
recordings to substitute for a pilot brief, so that the impact on
the number of pilot briefs would be related to the use of these
recordings (i.e., neither by itself would substitute for a full
pilot brief, but in combination they would).
With increasing automation, better recording equipment will
enable information to be updated more frequently, which may add
to the specialists' work load and may also provide better service
to pilots. With full automation, however, these recordings will
be prepared automatically, without specialist involvement.
Process Notices to Airmen (NOTA14's)
NOTAM's contain important aeronautical information that is
often crucial to safe flight. The processing, dissemination, and
canct-llation of a variety of NOTAM's is an important administra-
tive function performed by flight specialists. NOTAM's are
included in a standard weather briefing, but the time spent in
preparing them is not accounted for. Maintaining records of this
activity would be a minor administrative effort.
Process Pilot Reports (PIREP's)
Flight service specialists solicit pilot reports during
other contacts with pilots, both before and after flights, on the
ground and in the air. Air-to-ground reports are counted as an
aircraft contact, but because they are associated with another
aircraft contact this does not increase the measured workload
(aircraft contacted). Specialists also process and disseminate
PIREP's. The number of PIREP's processed would vary with weather
4 4-11
conditions in the same way that pilot briefs do and contribute to
the peaking problem that affects all specialists.
Other Functions that are Included in the Current Measures
In addition to these suggested additional counts, a
reorganization of the three current workload measures may be
appropriate. As noted above, these three workload measures
include a range of functions, many of which are not comparable.
o Four kinds of weather briefings are counted equally:standard briefings, abbreviated briefings, outlookbriefings, and EFAS briefings. Each of these generatesa different workload.
o In addition, one weather briefing cannot be compared toanother; a local forecast counts the same as a cross-country forecast. It was suggested to us in our visitsto local FSS's that one way to measure thesedifferences would be to automatically count the numberof lines used in a particular briefing and use thosecounts to weight them.
o An aircraft contacted may include as many as 30aircraft contacts, in the case of a Direction Finder(DF) assist to a disoriented pilot, or a single contactthat includes a flight plan filing and generates acount of three flight services.
o Aircraft contacted is such a general term that itincludes, as noted above, a wide range of disparatefunctions, most of which are not otherwise counted.
FACTORS AFFECTING FLIGHT SERVICE STATION WORKLOAD
Private Weather Briefings
It is currently possible and permissible to obta:in a weather
briefing fromn sources other than the FSS. Avai lable sources
include the National Weather Service, public television's
Aviation Weather Report, and private providers. Approximately
six private providers of weather data communicate with pilots
using computers and remote terminals. They charge for the
4-12
r4
connection, and provide all of the information available at FSS's
from the national database. They do not have access to local
NOTAM's. They can also provide weather maps and computer
generated flight plans. They cannot currently file flight plans
with the FAA on behalf of the pilot. They currently provide
between 5 and 10 percent of the weather briefings that the FSS's
provide.
Current FAA policy is to develop a mechanism whereby all
pilots will be able to avail themselves of these automated
services at no cost, to obtain the same data they obtain from the
FSS, and to file flight plans automatically. This policy is
recent; the date of its implementation is uncertain. At such
time as it occurs, there will be a drop in FSS services because
pilots may choose to use their personal computers to communicate
with private providers.
The Minnesota Department of Transportation is sponsoring a
program that provides pilots with access to computerized weather
briefings at no cost. The state has placed terminals at FBO's
S and other airport sites at 56 locations. The terminals and the
'a service are leased from Kavouras, Inc., a private firm. Analysis
of Minnesota DOT and FAA statistics indicate that about one-third
of all weather briefings obtained in the state during a recent
period were provided automatically. This appears to represent a
.1 reasonable assumption of the extent to which automated weather
brief:ings will replace specialist provided briefings nationally
Aif universally available free services were available, especially
.% if terminals are provided by FBO's.
4-13
W_ '-'4.54
Voice Response System
FAA has developed a voice response system for obtaining
weather briefings from a computer generated voice system over
touch tone telephones. The pilot dials a toll free number and
responds to the instructions by entering codes describing the
type of briefing desired and the airports of interest. Private
providers have also developed voice response systems. FAA has
installed an Interim Voice Response System (IVRS) in 16 cities as
a developmental program. They have gathered data from the
sixteen cities to determine potential use of the system. These
data are shown on Figure 4-3. Analysis of Interim Voice Response
System statistics from 16 cities indicates that these automated
* telephone weather briefings will replace about 5 percent of
* specialist provided briefings.
Consolidation and Automation.1
FAA is currently consolidating the FSS operation from over
300 locations to less than 100 Automated Flight Service Stations
(AFSS). The process includes the construction of new consoli-
dated facilities, which are being equipped with automated
equipment that simplifies and expedites the specialists
responsibilities. This consolidation and automation program has
had delays due to equipment and funding problems, but is
proceeding and will have an impact on the FSS workloads.
Many pilots have complained about being unable to get
through by telephone to the flight service stations. They say
that they eventually give up. Therefore, some of the potential
demand for flight services is not being satisfied at the same
4-14" " "
rrrw7'nIlrT W',' Y w -t -rw .rr, --u--v-.----' ---- ---
4.,I
plyX
c/o7,"7 ' .
/ // n, /
7CID*/~7 ~ //7
<,r / / /,/;77,
-- 0
r~r ,-~LL) /
uJJ Lo7 /,/
L (D I
////,/ -7 7/ / L'7'' ,.L
-; - .5: 7 /7 7,7,' / ,70
/ '7" 'Zb7
* ~ ~~ 0 CD7// /7,///
0// Q' 0 0//< C)7 'cc __0 \4
N 7 "o L
A, u, /dS1-v
47// ,15 ' /L
time that counts are declining. Because flight service stations
do not have the ability to track delayed and lost calls, however,
the truth of these claims and the magnitude of the problem is
impossible to measure. With consolidation and automation the new
systems will be able to handle a higher volume of calls to the
FSS and fewer calls will be lost. In addition, the reduced
holding times and greater accessibility will provide a higher
level of service than is now available, which should result in
more flight services being provided. How many more services is
difficult to estimate.
Where flight schools are located at airports with an FSS,
familiarization with the procedures of using an FSS and the
services that are provided by an FSS are included in the training
process. It is sure to include a tour of the FSS, an introduc-
tion to some of the flight specialists, and a demonstration of
the services that are available. Through this process, the
novice pilot grows comfortable with using the services provided
by FSS's and develops a propensity to use those services through-
out his flying career. When the FSS's are consolidated and the
services are provided by strangers over the telephone or radio
only, the pilot will be less familiar with the service offered by
FSS's and may be less likely to use flight services later.
Many pilots view the local FSS as part of their community
and are friends and neighbors of the flight specialists. They
actively support the local FSS, partly by using the services they
provide. When FSS's are no longer located in the communities
4-16
VW,-. . - - .Wwwwww-" -W-V
that they now serve, this local support will no longer exist and
the tot ] demand for flight services will decline.
Autormation is being held up by lack of moving funds and, in
some cases, funds for leased communications lines. Automated
stations are not as efficient without consolidation. Training
has become a serious problem, and new equipment cannot be
efficiently used until training is completed. For training to
proceed expeditiously, staff members need to live in the local
area.
In terms of financial impact, savings from AFSS come mostly
from consolidation. AFSS's can provide the same services with
fewer people, especially during slow shifts when one specialist
at the consolidated facility replaces one at each of the existing
-" facilities.
Aircraft Contacted
Because of the way that aircraft contacts are aggregated as
aircraft contacted, with the consolidation of flight service
stations and the consequent expansion of flight plan areas, the
number of aircraft contacted will decrease even if the number of
aircraft contacts does not. The magnitude of this change will
depend on the degree to which aircraft that previously dealt with
wore than one FSS on a flight will now deal with only one
cnsolidated FSS. This means that the ratio between aircraft
c(,ntacts and aircraft contacted, which is now known and tracked,
will change.
.
4-17
% A
Fliqht Training
" 'i bt trair',na atccounts for a substantial percentage of the
(i mandi for flight services. In some area , such as Florida and
California where a lot of flight training takes place, it
accounts for the majority of the flight services. By its very
nature:, training of students requires multiple pilot briefs and
aircraft contacts. As students advance in their training they
will also file large numbers of flight plans. The sharp decline
in the number of flight schools and student pilots accounts for
some part of the declining use of FSS services.
Student and novice pilots, the least experienced general
0aviation pilots, tend to account for a disproportionate number of
fliqht services. A student or novice pilot is more likely to
V- request one or more weather briefings, to file and close a flight
plan, and to need assistance in the air. Therefore, a decrease
in the number of student pilots (and shortly thereafter, novice
pilots) will also lead to a disproportionate decrease in the
demand for flight services.
Regional Airlines
Regional airlines account for large numbers of IFR flight
plans filed at some FSS's. The rapid growth of these regionals
since deregulation in 1978 may have, in selected areas, distorted
4O the count of IFR flight plans. When these regionals move to
direct filing, demand appears to have declined dramatically. A
good example of this trend and the distortion it creates is the
Cincinnati, OH Flight Service Station. Comair, an aggressively
expanding regional based in Cincinnati and affiliated with Delta
.J4
VO 4-18
I- 4.
had filed its IFR flight plans through the Cincinnati FSS, but
this year began to file them directly with the Indianapolis
center. The counts of IFR flight plans filed there dropped
dramatically:
1982: 30,0001983: 54,000 + 80%1984: 91,000 + 69%1985: 112,000 + 23%1986: 36,000 - 68%
Without Comair's abnormal growth included in the counts, the FSS
showed a reasonable increase of 20 percent in IFR flight plans
originated from 1982 to 1986.
The advent of regional airlines affiliation with major
carriers will speed this process of automated flight plan filing,
as the major carriers provide technical services for their
affiliated regionals. Major carriers nearly all have direct ties
into the ARTCC Computer for flight plan filing. At some FSS's,
this shift will cause a dramatic decline in the number of IFR
flight plans filed by FSS's without causing a significant drop in
actual work load.
*. Military Aircraft
4 Military aircraft are required to file IFR flight plans for
every flight. These flight plans have always been filed with the
FSS. The Department of Defense is automating that process so
that all military airfields will have facilities for directly
inputing flight plans to the ARTCC computer. As with the
regional carriers, this will cause a sudden large decline in IFR
flight plans filed for the FSS's that serve large military bases,
without as great a decline in actual work load.
4 4-19
.r r .. .W .w .v .w . . .
ALTERNATIVES TO CURRENT WORKLOAD MEASURES
Based on thl changing structure of the FSS activity and the
inability of the current workload measures to respond to that
structure, a number of alternative workload measures are
suqqested for consideration:
o Count broadcasts prepared (TWEB, PATWAS) as a workloadmeasure. These are dependent on the number of outletsand the weather, not flying activity and are not evenlydistributed around the country. Preparing broadcastswill become a full time effort at some FSS's afterconsol i (ation.
o Differentiate between iFR and VFR flight plans in thecounts. VFR flight plans are a more time consumingresponsibility for FSS's, and this disparity in effortwill increase after automation.
o Count NOTAM's (Notices to Airmen) prepared. This is aservice unrelat d to flying activity that varies aroundthe country.
0 Count PIREP's (Pilot Reports) processed. A currentlyuncounted activity that peaks during times of inclementweather.
o Distinguish among different kinds of weather briefings:
- Standard- Abbreviated- Outlook- EFAS- Local or cross country
Each of these entails a difierent effort. Counting thelines on the terminals may be a better way to measureactivity than simply counting briefs.
o Count aircraft contacts instead of aircraft contacted.A DF Assist can be 30 contacts and take 30 minutes oftime. Most contacts are much less time consuming.
o Count Saves as an activity.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FORECASTING
Forecasting FSS activity based on current workload measures
will require some major adjustments to the base data because of
4-2004
the structural changes discussed above. Historic data can be
factored to adjust for automation, consolidation, access to
private sources, the voice response system, and automated filing
by regionals and military aircraft. These factored base data can
be used in forecasting based on the forecasts of general aviation
activity. They should change in proportion to the changes in
hours flown, perhaps with some adjustment for student activity.
Additional adjustment will be necessary if there are significant
changes in the ratio of VFP to IFR activity over time.
Before any alternative workload measures can be forecast it
will be necessary to begin counting them in order to develop some
historical data as to the magnitude of the activity. With
automation, many of these data are more easily counted. Even
with historic counts, it will be necessary to adjust the base
data to account for the structural changes as they occur.
FSS activity will decline in the next ten years, no matter
what workload measures are used. This decline is largely a
result of automation and improved productivity. A continuing
drop in the level of general aviation activity will accelerate
the decline, but even if a boom in general aviation flying were
to occur, the work performed at FSS's will decrease.
.94.2
4-21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Complete Assessment of the U.S. General Aviation Aircraft• -. Industry, U.S. Department of Commerce, Internat ional Trade
A,I i i nist rat ior, Washington, D.C., June 1986.
Aerospace Facts and Figures, Aerospace Industries Asseciaticn of"An rica, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1976-1986.
Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest, Aircraft Blue Book Corporation,.c]. 86-1, 1986.
Components of Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers,Department of labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1986.
Fthell, Jeffery L., NASA and General Aviation, NaticnalAeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., 1986.
FAA Aviation Forecasts, Federal Aviation Administration, Officeof Aviation Policy, September 1978-1981, February 1982-1987.
- FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation, Federal AviationAdministration, Office of Management Systems, 1984, 1985.
Flight Service Station Privatization Evaluation Report, FederalAviation Administration, Office of Safel y, June 1985(unpublished).
General Aviation Activity and Avionics Survey, Federal AviationAdministration, Office of Management Systems, 1984, 1985.
General Aviation Pilot and Aircraft Activity Survey, FederalAviation Administration, Office of Management Systems, September1985.
General Aviation Statistical Handbook, General AviationManufacturers Association, 1983, 1985.
Hollyer, Mark P. and Starry, Claire, A New Modeling Approach forSmall Commercial Aircraft Sales, Paper presented at the January1987 Transportation Research Board Annual Conference, Stanford
%, Research Institute, Menlo Park, CA.
McDougall, Gerlad S. and Cho, Dong W., The Demand for the CessnaSkyhawk Aircraft, The Center for Business and Economic Researchand the Institute for Aviation Research and Development, WichitaState University, Wichita, KS, May 1986.
'.Monthly Energy Review, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy
Information Administration, 1986.
Pindyck, Robert and Rubenfeld, Daniel, Econometric Models andEconomic Forecasting, McGraw Hill, New York, 1986.
4. .
,'.%V
<. . - . - - - -. - -- -- -- -" 4 - '.- . *2 7 '''7 " . ' . - - . .
Survey of Current Business, Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates, Edition 107, Department of Commerce, Bureau of theCensus, 1987 and earlier editions.
The AOPA General Aviation Reference Guide, Aircraft Owners andPilots Association, 1985.
The Competitive Status of the U.S. Civil Aviation ManufacturingIndustry, U.S. Civil Aviation Manufacturing Industry Panel-, etal., National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1985.
U.S. Civil Airmen Statistics, Federal Aviation Administration,office of Management Systems, 1984.
U.S. Senate, Aviation Subcommittee, Commerce, Science andTrarsportation. Hearings on General Aviation Liablity StandardsAct. 99th Congress, June 1986.
p.
U,
S
PERIODICALS
Aircraft Builders Register Slow Progress in Advanced CompositeApplications, Aviation Week and Space Technology, September 29,1986.
Avionics Directory and Buyers Guide, AOPA Pilot, June 11)76-1986.
Buyers Guide 1986, EAA Light Plane World, August 1986.
Engine Manufacturers Turn to Nontraditional Designs, AviationWeek and Space Technology, September 29, 1986.
General Aviation Aircraft Directory, AOPA Pilot, March 1986.
Home, Thomas A., The New/Old F33A Bonanza, AOPA Pilot, April1987.
04.
APPENDIX A
ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED FOR STUDY
Il
..
APPENDIX A
ORGANIZATIONS CONTACTED FOR STUDY
Cessna Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, KS
Beech Aircraft Corporation, Wichita, KS
Piper Aircraft Company, Vero Beach, FL
Bellanca Aircraft, Alexandria, MN
- Davton-Granger, Inc., Ft. Lauderdale, FL
General Aircraft Maufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
Ying Ling Aviation, Wichita, KS
The Institute for Aviation Research and Development, Wichita
State University, Wichita, KS
Pro Flite Inc., Vero Beach, FL
Boca Aviation, Boca Raton, FL
Pompano Air Service, Pompano Beach, FL
Frederick Aviation, Frederick, MD
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, Frederick, MD
• .Minnesota Department of Transportation, St. Paul, MN
Classic Cessna, Eden Prarie, MN
Thunderbird Piper, Eden Prarie, MN
Experimental Aircraft Association, Washington, DC, Oskosh, WI
DeVore Aviation, Albuquerque, NM
Zenair, Nobelton, Ontario, Canada
Fisher Flying Products, South Webster, OH
National Association of Flight Instructors
Aeritalia, Arlington, VA Office
Aerospatiale-Socata, Washington, DC Office
AVEMCO Insurance Company, Frederick, MD
AVCO Lycoming, Williamsport, PA
John Deere Technoloay, Trenton, NJ
G;rob Systems, Bluffton, OH
Rockwell International, Collins Avionics, Div. Cedar Rapids, IA
Fliaht Service Stations, Minneapolis, MN; Princeton, MN;Wichita, KS; Vero Beach, FL
A-1
60
-A
* A-.
-A-p
"'A,
APPENDIX B
p.-
SINGLE ENGINE FIXED GEARA-
S
C-
1*
0.
.1*
A-
SINGLE-ENGINE FIXED GEAR"1,W1~fSeats Poitro, i el Coos$ WCt/ .n.,e Somad iut, Ranoe . aitioff, iae or kMax Ootq Stair Satog Etas.
aiC NACOe -'00 rme 34aaoyv EMOrsicil, ;Lrel 1 in .'45-i is' -n' anoVi C-0s AMWOia ,arno,liI 501an 1A " Paoinao 71, Iii) afi's qpn '5%; :11 ait i& Ao It cotili
-nu te kasV W.i -u aiton gpn 6ifi% is nl .00.15o00oc15
'AYLORCRAF'T 2 LYC, .3.235-L2C. 144124 1 750 107 :a 8.000,36/6 400 450 700 18000 55 528 595F-21 11 Q) io;FP 990 NA NA 500
616Price inciuaes aa conlrois. engine and fuel isauges. nlaigation lights. dual toe orases sitooer Parnesses. airs Deed.
altimeter. camoass. owner s and enoine manuals and icgDooirs Price acres no; include interior or eir,t,9sn,sh
TAYLCRCRAFT 2 LyC. O-235-L2C. 240,42 1.750 107 a~ 8.000/36/6 700 450 750 18.000 48 530-99F-218 112 to/FP 1.010 NA NA 500
500Standard eautonient including interior and exterior finish
MAULS 4 Lyc. 0.360-CIP, 138/23 2.300 137 e~ ?.500!63/10.5 450 (d 7.500 600 900 15.000 34 $39 342M-5-180C 180 hplCS 1.325 130 (LD 7,500/5218.6 490 @ 7.500 600
735STOL aircraft Price includes coal controls, engine gauges. gyro instrujmentation and heated Dital
A RCTIC * yc. O-320.A2B. 240/40 1.900 102 @d3.500/48/8 500 @&3.000 325 1,275 19.000 30 $40.306S182 150 hp/PP 988 96 @ 3.5(01/4217 [email protected] 500 test)Arctic Tern 672
Price includes dualr controls. toe oralles. 82/1" McCauley or00. 50 aecree Naas, line Mauie railwhee. 850 x 6 tires.caoin heat, windshield defroster. texan windshield and 1. 500 /0 Cleveiand wheels and btres.
MAULE 4 Lvc. 0-540-A5DO. 138123 2.300 150 @ 7.500/87/14.5 405 @ 7.500 600 1.350 20.000 34 $42.448M-5.2OSC 235 npCS 1 400 142 @ .002/2 450 @ 7.0 60
Lunar ;ocxe 660STOL aircraft. Grass weight when float ecuippea is 2.530 Ias. Price includes dual controis engine gauges.
gyro instrumentation and heated Pilot. Lyc. 1O-540-WIA5D flielniected madel avaiacile for $S4,748.
MAULE 45 1oc. :)-540_1A50, 156.'26 1.500 150 @&7.500/90/1.5 405 @ 7.500 600 1.350 20.000 22 S43.148M-25225 noiCS 1.050 142 @~)7,500,72/112 450 @ 7.500 600
Lunar Rscxet 30S IOL aircraft. Price includes dual cantrois. engine gauges, gyro instrumentation and
4 heated Ditot. Fuel-iected macel availatle tar $46.092.
MALLS .5.5 .sc. 10-540-V41A50 180/130 2.500 150 (a 7.500190115 405 (cO 7.500 600 1.350 20.000 35 S4..695W M-7-235 Z25 '.:/CS 1,500 142 (o@7,500,72112 450 @7.500 600
580STOL aircraft. Price inciudes dual cantrois and encine gauges. Fuet-iniected model available for $46.,795.
*MAULE 5 Lvc. 0-540-JIASO. 180/30 1.500 150 @ 7.500!90115 405 @cu7.500 600 1.350 20.000 22 $506655M-7-235 235 rip/CS 1.050 142 @ 7.500172/12 450 @ 7,500 600Lunar Suoer 30
S7OL aircraf:. Price inciuoes dust controls, engine gauges. gyro instrumentation end heatedt Pilot Fuel-ingected made, aveiiabe (or $52.843.
CESSNA 4 LVC. 0-320-02J. 258/43 2.407 120 (a)8.000.50/84 4"0 (a)8.000 1.625 700 13.000 46 S53.050172 P 160 hrp/FP 1.438 111 @ 8.00014417.3 587 @&6.000 1.280Sievnrlwk 729
.0 OrPfce includes engine gauges, gyro instrumentation, Oil ot-static system, exterior caint ano dual controls Max decided caiculated at max standard fuel.
*AEROSPATIALE 4 LI'S. 0-36OAlAD 324/54 2.535 127 @ 6.000/6611 460 @ 6.000 1.657 790 .00DO 52 56.700O7B-10 180 np/CS 1 477 117 @ 6,000/154/9 500 @a,8.000
Tobago734
*CHRISTEN I LvC. AEIC-360-AIE. 1,20.'20 1.150 156 @ 8.000175/12.5 280 @ 8.000 600 2.600 24.000 54 $58.935S-T200 mo/CS 650 NA NA 1.200
Pitl ts eCI&l 180Price includes siding cahoov and fired windtscreen aii-Iriudct tum eno cgi svstems
beasic engine Slight insrruments ana standard ceint design
*CHRISTEN 1 ..yc AEIO.54G-C4A5. 210,135 1,575 156 @8000/87/1,1.5 374 @ 8.0()0 925 2.800 Z1.000 52 $69.995S-2S 260 hp/CS 1.100 NA NA 1.350
PittsSoecil 255Price includes slidinc caroy. hired wimdscreen all-allituce tuit and a,! syrstems.asic engine. flight instruments and standard oaint desion
L CHRISTEN 2 Lvc. AEIO.540-D4A5. 174129 1,700 160 @ 8.000/103/17.2 288 @ 8.000 925 21.800 22.000 52 $73,850S-28 260 rsaC^S !.175 NA NA 1.350PfftS SOMcuaI 351
if Price includes rettisonable canocV with flied forward windsicreen auo-attitude fuel and oii Sisierris.basic engine. Sight instruments in both coceaoits ana standard catin: oesicn
re uirnt iea me,. FP-ied Pitch L;c---Cunsia'u peea. NA-Noi Available
AEROBArICBi
it. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 0051). 00iO. V ~ C DIW
*MUDRYH AE, 2? 246 11 1 830 135 'a SL60 10 "0 S'l 1 471 1100p 1-000 43 S80.000CAP 108'200 '303P aS_5' 95 NA 1 968
384
13,ce irctuces aa confrots erro'e Qauqes. ',for-static sysfem viric to, avionics anti comotela etioomen! for invertedaewcoaics isnouo3er riarnesses .,-rmewe ew-) uross 'eign, rate o' cjinc. taxeort at's ianoinq cisance sf0.0 lor utility caregorq
CESSNA 4 'Oil! "~7a-u 552:92 1 i0 142 8.000 -,12.8 820 (a 8 000 1.515 865 14 900 49 S80,950
182 R rip r.CS 7 3A 133 C-_8.000)66111 1.02$ 2 10000O 1.350Skyta"t 848
P, ce Inclwoss enolne gaugeas oal Controls DIIOt Srat): System Cminler head' temoeaurov gauge anti exteror (taInt.
CESSNA Ocrot. 13-20w-;7 552'92 3 612 147 (al 6,500,'96116 680 @w6.500 1.780 920 14.800 54 $111 400U206G 300 r'pS 0.4 135 (o)6.500f78.13 760 Ca 10.000 1,395Statonutr 6 '14C
Price iflciuces ettoine aues. oaoi-sratic system. cvtincet "ead remoerature oautia and exteror Damnt.
*CESSNA 6 ,cont 7SI0.520-M. 552/92 3 616 162 @020.000102,17 643 Z22.000 1.640 1.010 27.000 54 $124.650TU206G 310 np1 Z 2222 150 Cd 23000184/14 697 22.000 1.395Turoo !.366Statronair 6
Price inctuoes engine gauges, ilot-StatiC Sssem. cyinder Mead' temoerature gauge, cual controts. oxygen svstem i655 mass exterio tairn.1
p *C ro ini je4 Imei -Rxed Pait CC Onsldni 5prrd NA-Nor AVailabie
SAEROBATIC
B-2
LI- l
N: SINGLE-ENGINE RETRACTABLE GEAR
'.51 -2 15s "' r , . -' Si ! wz ,. :. 0L 3 eV -l. .4,.:, :00 '
_01 oa ... t l* .. I Qp'.i 'S, A 'C
A E R SPATlI ALE -_V: 5 A 516,89 9 55 1 4 2 7 11'85 02 V. 6L 221 232 " 4
''.n~dao-38
BE.ANCA 4 50.j1 2/ 52-K 408168 1225 '9'4 , 502 o 6 62i so, 1' 220" 62 S: :2,17 30A 300 %CS - 285 162 , - 5 8414 672 :. S5C 340SuoeI V, inq '32
,4te ,'cuoes cuai contro,s engimd o , cla, ef 2 oDe'e' anc D 0ot:t S :vs'e
M CNEY 4 c. 3-360-A3860 38464 2 740 168 . 8 000 11 830 d, 4 000 1 '0 C30 '8600 55 567 500
M^3 2C noCS - 1 571 163 1) 11 50 60,10 910 fc 6 000 1988231 685
1 4I ":-e rc:uoes .ua crtois eriqire oauQes and oit01 slalc svstem
MOONEY 4 Lyc. 10-350-A3860 384/64 2.740 168 0 8 000166'11 830 ( 4000 177o 10 30 18 800 55 S98 900M2,W 200 lo/CS - 1.571 163 (d 11500/60/10 910 (U 6000 1 988201 Lean Machine 685
':ce ,-nciuoes Atng avionics acxage. KMA 24 audiO DPanel. KX '55 navicom wiGS. K/ 209 VORLOCCS onitcatof KX 755 navicom Af .08 VOR'LOC 11oicator KR 86 AD; :7 754ransoonmer. mixe, KAP !00 flignt control system inciudes neading seiect VOR'LCC aoiure ano racx 1hqn comuer. .rgntea AH and DG
1 CESSNA 4 L -c. O-540-J3C50. 522/92 3.112 156 (d 7.500/7813 845 ( 7500 !.570 1.140 14300 50 5106 650R182 235 n/oCS - 1.782 148 @ 7.500,72/12 940 @ 1.000 1.320Skyviane RG 802
Pr!ce inciudes engine gaudes. gyro instrumentation 0oitstatic systemdual conitrols. cylinder mead lemperature gauge ano exteriot Daiil
CESSNA 4 Lyc. O-540-L3C50. 552/92. 3.112 173 ( 20.000184/14 845 ( 7.500 1.570 1.040 20.000 50 $118.500TR182 235 1p/CS - 1,827 162 @ 20.00072/12 940 @ 11,000 1.320Turbo Skylane RG 757
rePnc ncludes engine gauges, gyro instrumentation. Opiol-statlc system cylinder need temoerature
gauge. oxygen Sssem less masits and exterior Paon.
MOONEY 4 Cont. TSIO-360-MBI. 456[76 2.900 202 @ 28.00076.212.7 935 @ 28.000 2.000 1.080 28.000 59 $118.750M20K 210 no/CS - 1.800 185 @ 28.000/66/11 1.040 @ 28.000 2.300252 647 Price includes dual controls, engine gauges and DiOt-static system.
* LAKE 4 LyC. ;0-360-A I 6. 324154 2.690 127/(a) 6.500/60/10 590 @6.500 1.450 980 12,500 38 S133.200% LA41200 200 np/CS 540/90 1.670 122 @ 6.500/54/9 640 @ 6.500 900
EP 696 (waterl1.5751.100(land)
Pnce includes dul contros. engine gauces. full TSOeo gyro Daneo. heated otot.
corrosion oroohng, cargo door, Doodle and Oowine.
CESSNA 5 00nt FO-520-L 540/90 3.812 169 @ 6.500197116 765 @6.500 2.030 980 17,300 55 $143.350210R 300 ho/CS - 2.220 159 @ 6.500/82114 862 @ 10.000 1.500Centunorn 1.060 Price includes engine gauges. pirot-static system cylnder head temoerature gauge.
dual controis am exterior Daint. Ociaonal 120 gav LR lanes available
* LAKE 4 Lyc O-350-A186. 324154 2.590 143/(a20.000160110 665 @ 20.000 1.450 980 20.000 38 1.780LA4,200 200 hp/CS 540/90 1.698 127 @ 14.500154/9 667 @ 14,500 900Turbo EP 668 (water)
% 1.5751,100(land)
.0
nce includes Relay turbocflarge. dual controls. enorne gauges. lull TSOea gyro panel.heated Dit10. corrosion Drooling. cargo door, ,odoe and bowiine.
CESSNA 6 Cont 7S10-520-CE. 540190 4 118 201 @ 20.0001101117 720 @ 23.000 2.110 1.150 25.000 55 $165.750p'.
T210R 325 mp/CS - 2.320 190 @ 20.000/96/16 790 @ 23.000 1.600Turbo Centunon 1.336
Price includes engine gauges. pitot-satic system. cylinder head lemoerarure gauge.dual controls. oOtional 120 gal. LR lanes ano exterior prant.
i.:
*G-in Wsfiftf e (Pri FP-Firna P,rflh C5-.2.nm;~ Wped NA-Noi Availabie
S.'* ,* AMPHIBIAN
Bs-3
4,24Zao Va,-nsa 5vst. ;aLr paddl bori Uanrw. cargo door
7 A .. '8 b 090 9 5 85 9 565 1-- 0 1.53 100 19.000 48 S19540
AI em- - 3 , 000- 5 G 0 . 450
3.53
Pice rcuoes Qu, I00IR/ efldrie includingyr HSI Catte n/aaeroai. ataegr vste E il id/ Otfule a/tO oaig sysem
s~~~l.%~-$C 9~5 233 8 00.5121! 6 (5163000 i.913 18010 98.500 69 $19850
A36 22" 3 - 2 67 3) 8,00=86,14 876 (a 1Q.000 1 473 iesti3onanerzj 372 Price includes engine gauges navicom and pilot staic system
Max Davioac calculatedI ar max standard tiel
' EC : S 3i3- 5 2 102 2850 195 @ 25 000,'96,'16 984 (a 25.000 2 141 1.049 25 000 5 2. 0
8JC3-3S - 3.52 188 Q?2L.000!86114 1.022 @ 25 000 1.6192 cil",6nnI891 6 9%) (69%)
Price inc/uoes engine gauges nevccan aORILO C. wr/tdcteroed el/p/ne, inldividuale toe C//IreS.gvs nsltrumetaton ciocii. tus/ gauges. logaoocs a/la manuals. tsolyurelnene exterior paint and EU7
-ESSNA 8 .Z' i'2C. 509 18 201 (@L20 0001011,17 720 @5)23.000 2.110 1,150 25.000 55 $235200P7O325 rio.cs - 2 471 90 /0 20.000196.16 790 @u23.000 1.600
*Pressurized 1 15
* ertsunon Prce ncrsuoes engine gauges. Di/10t-statrc syrstem. cylinder need temperature gauge. duel controls, all metal ;.irrument panel,optional 120 gat. LIP tanKs. pressurizationt system ano exterior paint,
PPE 6 cn' 7SIC-520-BE, 732.122 4 10 215 @a;25 000195.16 1.330 (c- 25.000 2,025 1,143 25.000 59 $33000PA-46-310P 210 M:;CS - 2466 205025000/84/14 1.420 @25000 1.800
ma'u932 PIc inclu~des ill IFR ecuioment and ELT
.AMPHIBIAN
.J
B3-4
I! ' I
- - ... -UrW-" WW WrW r't"TWV' 'i W7 ' in'W"W W' - -- -
ON HOLD___SINGLE -ENGINE FIXED GEAR
los .-
Q
CESSN 5 £ -ISo .00 .. S 'w 'a-5 -
CESSNA -5 is 73 SK ~ '82 -MH i!0 6 308 510 -'43 ''0- '5' 28i 97''c . 8 C', ; 31 2 338 1 '1 00 2N0
AerCoa! 9
CESSNA 4 -1:~. 4 24154 3:a 33 72 '~~ 0 -5 ~8 -00 E9) 680 4J'3 S2" 3, 48 ' 3 8 510 (l 6000 1 335
7182 2 1 4751 81.920 3
CESSNA 8 023 5288 32 ' '7'95' ^4(a0 '43 coo ' 03Till, 233' 20 113- " 82 15( 1.000 1 340
*ESNA :- 3556 3.312 14 73 C9 5 65 d .00C 17 810 '235A115- i.723 188 18i3 353 1 C'c00
CESSNA 8 :- (C02. 36561 3 3 ! 141 i09 16 2432.00 '8970 885 0:-33 733 - ~ ~ 9 4 384 !4 3 E.000 1500
*SItataona, 8 ' 5
* DA.. 28 '80 ~ ' 13 '5.320. 45 a 1000 1,580
PtOEZ 4 C., 3203A5 467 z30 142/91381 65 "2 500 8,000 .71 7305
DA-18. is 0- p43258, C 4' -: M 9
R -7 -4" CS 64, !07 58 3 500 i 22'31 823 3 8000 '573 90 '53000 58
PA. 03 3 '35 1463 '300 96:16 91' 10.000 15 30
4 .. R 30c, 50 44) '639 I'c 50 10 590 (a, 900 co 5 50 544 ''3,44
-PA-;. 16'1 'c '348 '18' 2.00 52,86 6a31 '25-00 '.160
0 SINGLE -ENGINE RETRACTABLE GEARP 'nm ~ CaC' c', SD.'n .wI pa'o" Ta, f 'nia, c' V. Urac Ota rc
- - -A'''"' 1' r'v 'oe caoacDr i"Nr 9" y - 45-,m rs. 1-1 Lar'oq ' ' ~ ~ r a~ c
SlaJica'4 Mi a,oa -- '5~ a9
% (6 an Dstas~, ve
85T A" > l 300 444 74 3 400 17"' 6000'90'15 2W i 36 000 1 7P9 1 157 ''5? 51P3A 5 rc0.33 -- 2135 16.3 1ca 8000M/78/13 777 (. 10.000 1 324
AW 8ona'ta 843
1 45'5 42/107 6800 '59c- 'M"120:8,18 965 (586400 1 573 7',)10C i6700 57Pa.~ 3' 30v.3 1 999 '5'< 10 400196/16 937 /3j10400 ' 530Sa,"'a Sp ' 004
4 ' '" 0 r QP 482177 2 900 172 rc3 1850014o4 790 10, 18000 1 620 940 120000 61PA 7PR ' " '0 CS - 92 167 (L 2C000:78/13 830 (a 18000M 1 560'vv A ... a. V -76
CO' a 94'~4 r47 ,,10' 60 77 -- Z0000;'1IQ 4, P44'a '0 000 1 420 1 130 7000 56'A 20 '01' 30"cl"* - 2 078 '9 9 920 i 20 000 1 640
,,'CO) 'c'49 I P 927 166 (hi3 000 103 2.'
B- 504
-~~~ w j .~'a
IN THE WORKS_____ SINGLE -ENGINE P STON
25.RE A. 12'2'.~ : 5 100.NA:13 3 2 NA 12 A5 $22000
4, el .a:.S' elocei mid I0 s7 in 7935 coniafs)"5 _7es c 4 av n'",t ar ae m' rd. ,52 :rwr o~o ra:D, ,,c cu) controis
484 0984 123 5 5000,43 7 3 5 C30 S0 72 02 2 S36 O00* 621 143 !25 , 8 000 3 8!6 DO) i0 '00
584,' ca~.:, e'Dected in 1986
A 5A7 A. -E 13 43- .44474 30C3 8 *1 7 25 000,98 4116 4 .9" 53 . 1 20 S107 800-:2215 7 17'3 250744-12 4 C 22' 5
'4: eser e 4:2 00 tv .e,:.1saon eiroe::ri "st quarner 1986
V-r,, ,~rrn 111- -,.1 G,,-ra Or 1Fecr !';E-, ,wnf e:t .. - '-! 4a,.-r
* SJR~.A00A DlL07 MARC H 1986
0o
%
it I.% .... ..
NEW SINGLE-ENGINE PISTON AIRCRAFT
AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE - 1985
Gross Weight(Pounds) Average Price
1,675 to 1,900 $52,2002,300 to 2,550 83,8002,690 to 2,955 89,800)3,000 to 3,362 118,6003,400 to 3,850 174,0004,100o 330,000Turbocharged
3,112 to 4,118 139,4009..Pressurized 4,116 235,200
Averaqe based on prices in AOPA Pilot, March 1986.
-B-7
-'A
'A
~APPENDIX C
e'. AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF SELECTED SEP AIRCRAFT
-A',
"N
Os
AVIO1E RFTAI , PRIM1 OF SEIJFI7) S P AIR(]RA!
B1:TiB(NJ*,.M7A 36)---- ---- ---- ---- -- --] Y e a r S C) I (d
Vt cr 86 65 b4 83 82 8 8(O 70 78-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
,-7 54,50(; Y' ,00(1 -13,000 52,500 52,500 53,800) 55,00(0 55,500 45,375
" -7 73,000 ) 7 ',0 7i,500 69,250 75,000 72,000 77,125 72,000 69,300I, 87, 50{I (0,000 95, 00 8, 000 92,500 93,50(0 102,'500 90,500 90,500S -8, C00O 11C2,50 ) '07,500 96, 500 121 ,000 121,500 98,310 102,550
107, 00( 15,0o0 11 ,0 112,000 135,000" 22,5()0 125,000 :25,00) 128,0001,36, 00 7,50 __ .
, "
C' 15K ,000 ,7, 500 201 ,410-4 '1 85 ,00 217,L00
Yweel Yea r So I d: ar 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
S-7: 42,50( 42,250 44,750 42,500 44,000 44,500 45,875 36,500 35,500
-- 77 60,500 64,500 64,000 59,250 64,750 65,500 68,500 64,000 67,50080,001) 80,000 80,000 73,500 80,300 81,000 92,000 93,000
" . 86,000 86,000 87,500 83,000 83,500 84,000 98,225-.. 94,000 92,500 95,000 115,000 109,000 110,750H 108,500 107,500 110,000 126,000 126,0008.( 120,000 127,500 135,000 139,000p3 131,000 147,500 175,00084 146,000 180,000
PI.FQ'- (SKIPPER)
Mode] Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
1, 1,500 12,000 11,000 15,00080 12,700 13,000 12,000 16,500 17,000
J"- 81 14,50) 15,500 14,500 24,250 20,500
,-I- ANCA (SUPER VIKING)
Meo]eI Y e a r S o I dfYar 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
68-72 20,00 21,750 20,500 19,500 19,500 22,500 24,750 25,000 25,25073-77 32,000 34,250 34,250 37,500 37,500 41,025 45,625 44,375 49,3127H 45,000 46,500 46,500 52,500 52,500 64,500 66,000 68,00079 52,000 53,800 50,500 55,000 55,000 75,750 78,000
%0 58,500 62,500 60,000 58,000 58,0001 NmNE, 58,500
S2 NONE 58,500
NONE 58,500,4 95, 000 125,000)
VL
.0 ,,.. v ...;-..' '.'.'.-- : ". .:.,v .-v-),") i"- --. " - '"; :€ <" " " ; '
S~x 2: 0
SY (. Yea r S o I d86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
b8- 7 2 30,000 31,500 32,750 33,000 30,250 34,750 36,375 36,625 34,50079-78 46,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 52,760 60,250 63,275 52,500 51,875
5 9,000 58,000 58,000 62,000 70,000 95,000 97,000
80 65,000 69,500 78,500 72,000 83,5008i 77,000 77,500 80,000 93,000 125,00082 98,500 105,000 110,000 138,000
83 120,000 127,50084 140,000 169,965
CESSNA (172 SK'i HANK)
MoIdE] Y e a r S o 1 d'ear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
68-72 13,200 13,500 12,625 12,500 1.3,000 13,000 13,500 13,750 13,75073-78 17,000 17,250 16,500 16,000 21,000 21,000 23,800 28,50079 22,000 19,500 20,000 33,000 29,500 29,500 35,00080 24,000 23,230 23,500 35,000 40,00081 30,000 29,500 30,000 40,00082 33,000 35,000 37,000 55,00083 39,500 45,000 60,28584 49,000 64,940
CESSNA (182 SKYIANE )
Mode- Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
68-72 22,000 20,750 20,750 19,500 19,500 19,500 21,000 21,250 28,50073-78 30,000 29,500 29,250 32,125 32,125 30,625 33,250 36,00079 38,500 38,500 38,000 45,000 45,000 40,000 45,00080 43,000 42,500 43,000 49,500 53,500 55,50081 47,000 48,000 48,000 65,800 65,80082 53,000 56,000 60,000 69,00083 63,000 70,000 87,00084 71,500 93,625
cITSSNA (185 SKYWAGON)
Mode] Y e a r S o I dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 7868-72 31,000 24,000 24,000 20,500 19,000 21,500 23,750 24,250 23,125
73-78 40,000 35,000 34,000 30,500 32,000 36,375 41,000 41,400 34,12579 48,500 48,000 47,000 42,250 45,000 50,000 56,50080 57,000 54,000 53,000 50,000 55,00081 65,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 67,50082 67,000 68,000 68,000 80,00083 76,000 80,000 94,00084 87,500 100,500
C-2-S . , , . , W. -.-# -.. '€ 7 i. " ''' . . ""''' . C- • - .-¢.- . .
CESSNA ( 180-H SKYWGON )
Mlodel Y e a r S o I dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80I 79 7...............................................................................
68-72 24,500 28,750 24,750 23,625 19,000 20,400 21,250 21,750 20,25073-78 30,000 38,825 31,750 30,000 27,375 30,250 34,500 35,000 33,56279 36,000 46,750 38,000 38,000 40,500 45,000 54,50080 39,000 51,000 42,000 44,000 49,50081 41,500 65,000 46,000 50,000 60,000
CES SNA (STATIONAIR)
Mcodel Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
.]78 45,000 44,000 44,000 45,000 48,500 0N,000 63,500 63,750[,79 48,500 46,750 47,500 47,800 50,500 65,000 67,5004'80 57,000 51,500 52,500 62,500 62,500
81 65,000 65,000 67,500 75,000 75,000"82 78,500 83,000 90,000 95,000S83 97,500 105,000
84 110,000 138,065
j M(UNh Y (MARK 201 )
'Model Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
77 44,000 42,750 43,500 45,000 45,00078 48,000 47,000 48,000 50,000 50,00079 52,000 52,000 52,000 55,000 55,00080 56,000 58,000 59,000 65,000 65,0008] 61,000 63,500 69,000 75,000 85,50082 70,000 72,500 79,000 10,200
"83 80,000 83,00084 92,500 123,795
MCO)NEY (MARK 2A RANGER)
Model Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
[67-72 23,500 23,250 22,000 20,750 19,125 15,275 21,125 18,750 18,75073-78 28,500 28,625 28,500 27,500 29,250 26,375 35,625 35,875 31,750
|79 31,500 35,000 35,000 34,500 45,500
C-
=0
PIP R (SUPFR CUB)
Model Y e a r S o I dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
68-72 19,000 17,625 16,250 14,500 15,500 11,500 13,500 13,750 13,75073-78 23,500 22,500 25,250 20,750 21,875 18,625 20,750 20,625 20,50079 29,500 27,500 28,000 25,250 26,000 26,000 28,00080 31,000 30,000 30,000 26,500 30,00081 33,000 32,000 32,000 29,000 35,00082 35,000 35,000 36,00083 38,700
-. PIPER (CIMANCHE PA-24-250)
Model Y e a r S o 1 dYear 86 85 84 83 82 81 80 79 78
67-72 34,000 34,250 34,750 36,875 36,000 38,250 36,500 36,500
Source: Aircraft Bluebook Price Digest, 1978-1986.
NP
4-
.
COO
4C-4
i'j . .... ... . . . . .. . . .
APPENDIX D
SINGLE ENGINE PISTON STUDY
-. DATABASE AND CORRELATION MATRIX
"4
.-N
0.-
A'.€
DATABASE
Value of Unit
Single Value ofSingle Engine Single Multi- Turbo-Engine Piston Engine Engine Prop
Piston ShipmentsI Piston Piston PistonYear Shipments I (000,000's) Shipments 2 Shipments 3 Shipments3
1970 5,603 1,159 1351971 5,910 1,043 891972 7,438 139 18,723 1,548 1791973 10,140 202 19,916 2,413 2471974 10,884 229 21,069 2,135 2501975 10,532 254 24,117 2,116 3051976 11,803 364 30,840 2,120 3591977 13,167 433 33,037 2,195 4281978 13,651 486 35,602 2,634 5481979 12,693 490 38,604 2,843 6391980 8,283 365 44,066 2,116 778
* 1981 6,268 315 50,255 1,542 9181982 2,697 183 67,853 678 4581983 1,739 137 78,781 417 3211984 1,592 145 91,080 374 272
' 1985 1,369 124 90,511 193 3211986 985 80 81,218 138 250
1Aerospace Facts and Figures 1985-1986.
2 Derived by decoding value of shipments by units shipped.
3GAMA, General Aviation Statistical Handbook, 1985 Edition.
D-1
T,- DATABASE (CONTINUED)
Genreral1Jet Total Aviation"Engine Units Total Averae Student Hours
Year Shigyents' ShippedI BillinsI Price- Pilots Flown 3
1970 56 7,292 33,700 46,2151971 47 7,466 32,150 43,0621972 134 9,774 55,760 57,049 121,543 26.41973 198 13,646 82,810 60,684 131,384 28.51974 202 14,166 90,940 64,196 113,997 30.71975 194 14,056 103,290 73,485 127,424 31.71976 187 15,451 122,550 79,315 129,280 33.01977 227 16,904 148,810 88,032 138,816 35.31978 231 17,811 178,120 100,006 137,032 37.11979 282 17,048 216,500 126,994 139,956 39.01980 326 11,877 248,620 209,329 102,301 41.61981 389 9,457 291,990 308,755 117,962 41.11982 259 4,266 199,950 468,706 84,761 37.81.983 142 2,691 146,950 546,080 94,981 36.4
*- 1984 171 2,438 169,810 696,514 91,395 35.9
1985 145 2,029 143,000 704,781 80,060 36.61986 122 1,495 126,000 842,809 88,582
,GAVA, General Aviation Statistical Handbook, 1985 Edition.
2Derived by decoding value of shipments by units shipped.
3 Iederal Aviation Administration, Aviation Forecasts: 1986-1997, 1980-1991 & 1975-1986.
D-2
I II P
DATABASE (CONTINUED)
Itinerant LocalI Total1General1 General General1 Housing Insurance AnnualkIAviation Aviation Aviation Cost cost Disposable
Year Operationsl Op4eratijons 1 I ([ at ionsl Index2 Index2 I________
1970 695,3001971 764,977
*1972 33.6 20.1 53.7 128.1 140.5 834,6541973 34.0 19.9 53.9 133.7 138.0 943,6351974 36.1 20.8 56.9 148.8 138.1 1,032,853
*1975 37.6 21.4 59.0 164.5 145.9 1,137,41]1976 39.7 22.8 62.5 174.6 187.9 1,247,8731977 42.4 24.3 66.7 186.5 210.5 1,374,2881978 43.6 23.6 67.2 202.8 216.6 1,545,70919)79 45.9 24.7 70.6 227.6 228.7 1,722,74019 80 44.3 21.9 66.2 263.3 247.4 1,912,2761981 42.0 19.5 61.5 293.5 259.0 2,119,926
* 1982 36.0 14.7 50.7 314.7 275.7 2,252,6311983 38.0 15.3 53.3 323.1 302.7 2,423,6791984 41.0 15.8 56.8 336.5 326.3 2,662,815
*1985 41.9 16.0 57.9 349.9 359.5 2,825,215*1986 361.5 334.6
iFecleral Aviation Administration, Aviation Forecasts: 1986-1997, 1980-199. &1975-1986.
2 [)epartment. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Components of Consumer PriceJ rxlex.
D1-3
IVV ru H - - - . - - .- C
DATABASE (CONTINUED)
Annfuc3 I Gross Consumter Tr a sI: ryPer Aviation Gross National Price Bill
C a1)i ta Gasoline National Product In d ex I nt er e tYe ar I n come1 Price2 Product3 Deflator3 19-67=-100 Pate
11,70 3,390 19.24 992.7 91.5 116.3 6.461971 3,689 20.53 1,077.6 96.0 121.3 4.3411,72 3,988 20 .72 1,1185.9 100.0 125 .3 4.0711473 4,465 23.78 1,326.4 105.8 133.1 7.04'1474 4,841 37.53 1,434.2 115.1 147.7 7.891975 5,279 41.13 1,549.2 125.8 161.2 5.841,76 5,736 43.12 1,718.0 132.3 170.5 4.9919,77 6,254 47.52 1,918.3 140.1 181.5 5.271- 78 6,960 51 .95 2,163.9 150. 4 195 .4 7 .221>,79 7,671 68.64 2,417.8 163.4 217.4 10.0411)80 8,415 109.03 2,631.7 178.4 246.8 11.511981 9,232 131.42 2,957.8 195.6 272.4 14.08
182 9,710 132:.53 3,069:.3 207 .4 289.1 10.69
1984 11,250 123.33 3,662.8 223.4 311.1 9.5819485 11,834 120.15 3,998.1 232.9 322.2 7.49
86 111.q5 4,206.5 237.4 326.9
e~a~ n~'t f ahor, Bureau of Labor Stati stics, Components ofCe)nsur(er Pr~ce Tindex. (All urban consumers U.S. city average
1'67=1 100
1) Depar I r en t o)f I errcjy, Fneray Informrati on Administration,
Vi '18 lv Fru"ro%,8e
3 St t- o s t c al ktr
D)- 4
DJATABASE (CONTINUED)
'-a i n t t -narice 2P r-,r~ Prsona I and Hourly- Tota 12
1 nttrest Ccnsumpticn Overhaul Fuel Oper-atinrgtr ae 1 n cl i tdLur s 2 Cc sts cc)s ts Co)sts
'C 7:618.8 1.40 4.35 5.751-V71 5.72 672.? 1.51 4.33 5.84. 72 5.25 737.1 1.62 4.43 6.05'u73 8.03 812.0 1.97 4.87 6.84
* 4 1.1888.1 2.10 6.59 P.69*7.86 1)76.4 2.25 7.04 9.29
-76 6.84 1,084.3 2.74 7.67 10.41* ' 77 6.82 1,204.4 2.99 8.96 11.951""78 9.06 1,403.5 3.11 10.23 13.34
* :i79 12.67 1,568.8 3.26 12.24 15.5015 .26 1 ,732 .6 3.48 16.15 19.63
I l 18.87 1,915.1 3.68 18.86 22.5414.86 2,050.7 4.10 19.66 23.76
61183 10.79 2,334.5 4.36 19.96 24.3214 12. 04 2,428 .2 4.53 19.76 24.29
1 985 10.48 2,600.5 4.57 19.36 23.93'86 2,760.0 4.62 18.25 22.87
'Satis t icalI Ahs tra ct .
2 f f i C( of 7Aviction Policy, Federal1 Aviation Administration.
V
-D-
* DATABASE (CONTINUED)
*I- laht Plans Pilot Brief i ns Aircraft ContactsFi 2ed at Fliqht at Fligqht at Flighit
ar lcrvjce Stations1 Service Stations1 Service Stations1
6 .6 13.5 10.07 3 7 .2 14.7 9 .9
>47.8 15.4 9.98 . 16 .2 10.0
168. 16 .0 9 .8.7/ 8 .7 16 .9 10 .2
1>178 9 .1 18 .3 10 .21(719 .5 18 .7 10 .2109 .0( 18 .3 9 .6
8 8.8 17 .7 9 .61 8 2 8 .5 17 .8 9 .7
* 83 8 .1 16.0 8 .6>4 8 .2 15. 1 8.1I
158. 0 14 .6 7.7
~Eecera I A7.i at ccn Ad rnist ra t on, Aviation Forecasts: 1986-1997,
1901 1)1 and 19 75-19 86 .
IN.I%
CORRIPATION MATRIX
~.kS Ic~ r~5 SI,$ lI MUI[' 'I'<(. 1.
.oo" .07m:6 -. 8486** 9634"* .1 398 .22571..72* 1,0000 -. 4301 .7816** .5927 .5544
-. 8486** 4301 1.0000 -, 8534** .049P -. 1208.78:c** -,85%4** 1 .0000 .256- 355
.1 318 .5N27 ,0498 .2563 1.0000 9361 **F ,2257 .5544 -1208 .3595 .9361** .0006
.*r 477** .8125* -. 8501** .9759"* .195 .2846T. N(, -. 438 .4187 .3794 -. 0382 .9302** .8467**
A GI - • I(** -. 560 11 . 9865** -.9130** -,0345 -.1767.7182* 8159** .8 9 2* .1130 1810
- 4015 5225 - 1369 8347** 6894*N .1'60 .6895* .2675 .1980 ,6885* .5000- k&X: .46* .8633** -,7536** .9275** .2850 .3063
(t ' .6527* .9173** -. 2466 .6408* .6000 .4925hOUS1N"X - 7(44 ** -. 2857 .9585** -, 7668** .3152 .1477INS -. 7 -730* -. 2288 .9661** -.7451* .2516 .0439I ], p- .77 ** - 2775 .9727** -. 761.1** .2710 .0909t'fNC -. 7666** -.2576 .9680** - 7484* .2906 .1103-. 7747** -.2638 .8752** -.7132* .4462 .3202
--.7713** -.2719 ,9699** -.7554** .2736 .0900, .7724** -.2581 .9615** -.7530** .3099 .1346
Th LL -.3651 .0663 .4292 -.1950 *7594** .7649**-.3854 .0466 .4380 -.2316 .7603** .7676**
CV\STS -,7017* -.2682 .9528** -.7036* .3043 .1196fl-:Ijfy -,7700"* -.2441 .9144** -.7228* .4067 .2560
'It, .7641** -. 2347 .9239** .7235* .3944 .2383FPIANS .2210 .7332* .2159 .2465 .7747** .6735*PBPILFS .3218 .7549** -.0070 .3875 .8210** .7?87**ACCOWt)h .8448** .6373* -.8846** .8630** .2096 .3699
N of cases: 14 1-tailed Signif: .01* -. 001
-D-
. 1
... .- +
la m I. .0
&. I
(C"*&I.ATIc*J MA1TX (aJDJrINUED)
Cu!Tn 13ct~cfls: T1O1UNITS BILJliNGS AVGPRICF: STPUENTS jOuLRS I TIINOPS
9977** -. 1438 .9101** .9251** -. 2021 .1960I.8125** .4187 -.5609 .7182* .4015 .6895*-~T .8501** .3794 .9865** -.8159** .5225 .2675179759** -.0382 -.9130** .8992x* -.1369 .1980
TRC.1959 .9302** -. 0349 .1130 .8347** .6885*iv.2846 .8467** -. 1767 .1810 .6894* .5000
'Jl-NlTSc 1.0000 -. 0923 -. 9129** .9237** -. 1620 .2156I I I1NGS -. 092l3 1.0000 .2941 -. 1614 .9490** .7130*
AVP~L~ 912 9* .2941 1.0000 -.8678** .4185 .1392* KD-7S .237~ -.1614 -~.8678** 1.0000 -.2716 .1291
-.1620 .9490** .4185 -.2716 1.0000 .7972**.2156 .7130* .1392 .j2()l .7972** 1.0000
kk9 3576** .0073 -.F32b** .8915** -.0420 .4035.6671* .46i& -. 3717 .5758 .4875 .8627**
LW I M)x - 77c,!** .6W 7 .(-285,** -7HG4** .7181* .3932~Ns1M:Y't - .7336* .54 06 .1)24 3** - .7234* .6817* .4694PISINC -. 7671** .68 1 .1-4414* -. 7642** .6943* .4254
-. 7547** .5 864 .9338** -7t544** .7106* .4404A S ~ .7468* .7087* .850)6** ~.76"05** .7674** .3500
Ci769* P5( 14* - .75608 * * .6919* .4365GNPDFI'li'R -. 7587** .6042 .9263** - 7K)4 * * .7241* .4225' 1 12 - .310 0 .8723** .4060 -. 3741 .7843** .3996P PJ MY -.3314 .8725** .4182 -. 4230 .7929** .3883M(X'OSTS Is .6921* .6027 .8987** - .6990* .7429* .4808
FIId P -7475* .6845* .88 08* -. 7567** .7679** .39297(1-.7433* .6763* .8873** -. 7522** .7680** .40691LNS.2507 .8184** .0788 .1224 .8775** .8741**
r Bpji -IV. .3618 .7931** -. 1338 .2202 .7908** .6835*ACLUONT .8571** -. 0658 -. 9206** .8111** -. 2120 -. 0777
N (,, c asY- 14 1-ta led Signif: ol 01 * .001
D- 8
WRURE[ATION MAVTRIX (CO'rM14p))
curltIos: lk(C~xi'O iudY.ps HOLISlNDX I NSI iiX D)ISPINC PCI NC
S*9546** .6527* -. 7945** -. 7390* -.7779** ~7666**SFS.8633** .9173** -. 2857 -. 2288 -. 75 -26L7N IT$ .7536** -. 2466 .9585** .9661** .9727** .9680*a
.Mullil .9275** .6408* -. 7668** - .745l* -. 7611** -. 7484*,1:). 2850 .6000 .3152 .2516 .2710 .2906F .3063 .4925 .1477 .0439 .0909 .1103YI'UN I S .9578** .6671* -.7791** -.7336* -.7671** -7547**
PI.I N (S .0073 .4618 .6087 :5406 .5689 .5864UE1, .8915** .5758 -.7804** -.7234* -.7642** -.7544**H1OURS -.0420 . 4875 .7181* .6817* .6943* .7106*iiT1NoAl- .4035 .8627** .3932 .4694 .4254 .4404LiXZOPS 1.0000 .8105--:** -.6747* -.5985 -.6536* -.6409*
.8105** 1.0000 -.1216 -.0316 -.0893 -.0728HOUIJSTTX -.6747* -.1216 1.0000 .9726** .9934** .9942**ISMX -.5985 -.0316 .9726** 1.0000 .9877** .9870**D I'S P!NC -. 6536* -. 0893 .9934** .9877** 1.0000 .9997**1-Ct NC -. 6409* -. 0728 .9942** .9870** .9997** 1.0000NVGAS -. 6610* -. 1412 .9694** .8966** .9380** .9416**(JNp -.6432* -.0764 .9898** .9897** .9992** .9986**GNPDFILrR -. 6516* -. 0903 .95* 974 .9965** .9975**-. 2825 .1041 .6 2 * .4988.5 2. 94
PRP' -.3016 .0854 .6483* .5096 .5939 .6055MCS& -. 5851 -.0173 .9804** .9814** .9845** .9869**FLI-l2]1? -. 6525* -. 1089 .9888** .9371** .9681** *9713**A)Tv -.6462* -.0967 .9922** .9476** .9748** .9779**FpIAN~s .3359 .7459* .3982 .3923 .3916 .4121pppRiEK- .3842 .6516* .2207 .1632 .1814 .2043iCUUI\T .7565** .3708 -.7722** -.8077** -.8106** -.7978**
? :f cases: 14 1-tailed Signif: *-.01 **-.001
D)- 9
* - - -. - - -; - - ~ .~wr.'r~rw.wr - -., V v r -wr vw -w rw rr. . .V- V .
U )RREI ATION MA PRI X (Ul'IMJi))
7 3 H'- 47 017-271 -. 5<.8 .0466 -. 1682.o52* ~ ua 615 .42i2, .4380 .920,**
~.7j2* 7 K4** 753** - .- 4 -. 23316 -. 7O36*4,2 .2736 . 304.,.. 7603** .3043
34.s-r0 .76 (* C'i1'** .UI'196
7OW** TA'- o. -3314 -. 6921*1J 7<7- .5060 .60,12 H,72;j* 8725** .6027
K,:'I lO6 ~ '3 4 .26~ .4060) .4182 .8987*& -77 * ~ 756* ~7604i* -. 3741 -. 4230 .699o*
.774* 65Y .7241* 743* 72* .7429*.3 >0 .35 .4225 7t .3883 .48086 (1 * .64 3* 6 £51 6* - 2825) -3(l6 - .5851
-.142 -.0764 -. 003) .1041 .08 54 -. 0173'<'%4* b5<* *995* h,6327* .6483* .9804***O* .'' tv6~ 57** 97.4* .498 8 .5<,6 .981 4**
-(7 . 39~ (14Z* .9965** .8 2 .594i 9645**.91* .96* 99)75** .59)48 .6055 .986"**
.00c ()3(,(1 R.9580** .7625** .7829** .9256**.'307* 1.0000) 9935* .577 0 .5883 .9806**
L18** 9JI35** 1 .0000, 6130* .6277* 9877**7.57 70 .6130* 1.0000 .9894** .5658
.7827,* .5883 .6277* .98(94** 1.0000 .5744qH806** .9877** .5658 .5744 1.0000
7 2* .9615** 9827** .7180* .7318* .9614**9.b76** .9686"* .9879** .7QQ3* .7134* .9712**
.4206 .3898 .4210 .5673 .5624 .4839.3094 .1732 .2311 .5725 .5695 .2797
-660C.* -. 8148** -. 7739** -. 1996 -. 2074 -. 7420*
14 1-ta 1&c Sagnif: .01 **-.001
D-10
-""" (RE] .ATI ON MAViR] X (CIN'iINU1M)
-77i.0"* -. 7641* .2210 .3218 .844b**- -F -. 244] -. 2347 .7332* 7549** .6373*
q 3 9 ** .2159 -. 0070 -. 8846**2- * -7235* .2465 .3875 .8630**
- .:39 4067 3C44 7747** .8210** .2096- .2560 .2383 o735* .7787** .369 9
7475* -.7433* .2507 .3618 .8571**.,1[NC]S2 .6845* .6763* .8184** .7931** -.0658
oi **80" .8873** .0788 -. 1338 -. 9206**1- .2 }' -75b7** -. 7522** .1224 .2202 .811] **
.767o** .7680** .8775** .7908** -. 21202( .4069 .8741** .6835* -. 0777
>" -. 6125* -.6462* .3359 .3842 .7565**... tP's -. 108, -. 0967 .7459* .6516* .3708
.u888"* .9922** .3982 .2207 -. 7722**".: .... : . 37 ** .9476** .3923 .1 632 -. 8077**
b.681** .9** * 3916 .1814 -. 8106**.4' 3** 9779** .4121 .2043 -. 7978**
S,(2 . *2* .9876** .4206 .3094 -. 6609*.161 5** .96 86** .3898 .1732 -. 8148**
.7 ( ,I }P .9827** .9879** .4210 .2311 -.7739**- .7180* .7003* .5673 .5725 -. 1996
.7318* .7134* .5624 .5695 -.2074
.6. 64* .9712** .4839 .2717 -. 7420*].0000 *9993** .4431 .3032 -. 6957*
.9c93"* 1.0000 .4508 .3013 -. 7053*
.4431 .4508 1.0000 .9270** .1275i; .3032 .3013 .9270** 1.0000 .3883
-. 6957* -. 7053* .1275 .3883 1.0000
casrs: 14 1-tailed Signif: * - .01 ** - .001
P
A-
D-1104
°J
* ,d
£: o o - - -• - o O • :_--p o.. ::::::::g - ...